Re: GR ?
- From: "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:00:54 GMT
"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121351443.7728.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.
Quit evading - I did not.
>
> For a start its considerably more obscure than my definition, to me anyway
..
That is because you do not understand the terminology. Have you made the
effort to investigate it?
> Secondly it refers to a mathematical theorem proving a physical reality.
So? Do you deny Pythagoras's theroem proves something about physical
reality or are surveyors deluding themselves?
> Thirdly I have no idea what time symmetry in that context means so could
you
> explain what this means to you ?
Now we are getting somewhere. It refers to symmetries in a systems
lagrangeian. If you do not know what a lagrangeian is check out
http://alamos.math.arizona.edu/~rychlik/557-dir/mechanics/
Noethers theroem loosely speaking says to every symetry in a systems
lagrangeian there corresponds as conserved quantity. The conserved quantity
associated with symmetry in time is called energy -
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
> 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.
Quit evading - the above has nothing to do with the definition of energy.
Bill
>
> |
> | 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: Significant Zero
- Re: GR ?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: relativity of simultaneity
- Next by Date: Re: Nonlocality, EPR, "Spooky" Action at a Distance Explained by Moving Dimensions Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
