Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:31:11 +0100
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TfqBe.48161$oJ.12485@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:1121325637.15682.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:qAmBe.47817$oJ.28366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | news:1121078106.29029.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >
| > | > "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
| > |
| > | How about actually addressing the issue? - namely your definition
lacks
| > any
| > | quantitative predictive content or indeed makes any sense.
| > |
| >
| > What are you on about ?
|
| Your definition of energy as '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.' This time no evasion - what is wrong with the modern
| definition of energy as the conserved Noether charge related to time
| symmetry.
*Note* that you asked me to criticise you when this thread was about you
constructively criticising me if you wished.
For a start its considerably more obscure than my definition, to me anyway .
Secondly it refers to a mathematical theorem proving a physical reality.
Thirdly I have no idea what time symmetry in that context means so could you
explain what this means to you ?
Fourthly I don't believe that charge as defined by the electron is
fundamental etc , is that enough for the moment but we can go into detail if
you start by answering the above question.
|
| Bill
|
| > I am only trying to compare my conceptual model with
| > others and my experimental data is the same as yours I hope. What do you
| > think the issue is Bill other than your claim that what I write is
| senseless
| > and your response of 'rest of semantic senseless rubbish sniped', which
is
| a
| > bit of a broad criticism to address {:-)
| >
| > | > {:-)
| > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| 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 ?
| > |
| > | No.
| >
| > A totally unexpected reply {:-)
| >
| > |
| > | > 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 ?.
| > |
| > | So you admit your agenda is not to discuss physics?
| >
| > I don't know how you managed to conclude that from what I wrote? I am
| trying
| > to compare my model of reality with others on this group, in my book
that
| is
| > discussing physics. If it can be made amusing and entertaining then so
| much
| > the better, are you in disagreement with that ?
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > 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 ?
| > |
| > | How about addressing the issue rather than your pathetic attempts at
| > | misdirection?
| >
| > What issue have you moved to now Bill ?
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > 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
| > |
| > | You mean the hole you said was 'you love debating about 'energy and
| > | conserved' that it never seems to address except with clichés'. How
| about
| > | sticking to the issue at hand
| >
| > You linked me to the paper Bill so I was trying to address its content,
| > pathetic red herrings is more your style.
| >
| > | instead of wandering off into appraisals of
| > | what I love and do not love. But this kind of misdirection is central
| to
| > | your style and indicative of my hypotheses that your agenda is not to
| > | actually discuss physics but to engage in senseless semantic waffle.
To
| > be
| > | specific what is wrong with the definition of energy as the conserved
| > | Noether charge related to time symmetry? Or is it as I suspect your
| math
| > is
| > | not much beyond kiddy level - yet you believe you can intelligently
| > discuss
| > | modern physical theories? There is no shame in admitting you do not
| know
| > | what conserved Noether charge is or that you are not fluent in more
| > advanced
| > | math
| >
| > I have read noethers paper and I do admit that the notations is
difficult
| > and beyond me at the moment but one of the statements about her paper
was
| > that it ' Proves both the theorems described above (Langrangian, Lie
| Group)
| > and there converses.
| > This reads to me as a academic exercise that may have no bearing on
| physical
| > reality. Now if you can give a simple provable physical example that can
| be
| > proved both with and without Emmys theorem then please do and I will
give
| > the paper more study and see if I agree with your statements in which
you
| > use this as proof of.
| >
| >
| > | or that you do not know the generalization of Newtonian potential is
| > | the metric -
| >
| > That is your definition but mine is that the Newtonian potential is a
| > gravitational gradient and nearest I can come to it in GR terms is a
| > momentum 4 vector this view I find support for in the FAQ paper you
linked
| > me to.
| >
| > | the shame is in avoiding the issue that you do not really
| > | understand what you are criticizing and trying to take the discussion
| into
| > | senseless semantics.
| >
| > You may think that semantics is senseless but without a common meaning
for
| > things no communication can occure.
| >
| > |
| > | Bill
| > |
| > | >
| > | > 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 me 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: water inside a black hole
- Next by Date: Re: relativity of simultaneity
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
