Re: GR ?


"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:G8CBe.48783$oJ.31601@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:1121351443.7728.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:TfqBe.48161$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

| > 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?

No they are working in a local context were space and time
curvature\distortion are not usually significant to their measurements and
the physical reality ~proves the theorem not the other way about. Come down
off cloud 72435 {:-)

Are you by any chance claiming that Pythagoros holds true under GR ?

Is this is how you justify using a lagrangeian and its derivatives as some
sort of definition in GR ?

|
| > 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.

On your ground you think Bill. {:-)

| 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/

Yes I had a little understanding of L but felt it might not be applicable in
a modern electric field statement which I was trying to construct using ~GR
as a component. The main
reasons being that it contained no terms for the adjustment of energy as a
function of time and distance.

You perhaps think that this is not a dependency ?

The other being that its conceptualisation may have predated the most
primitive understanding of electricity.
Yes I know that J.L.L. (1736-1813) was a peer of C.de C (1785) but they
were early days and I have some trouble with C.de C. That was >200 years ago
and I hope we might have moved on a little.
I don't dispute the use of lagrangeians for some applications but as a tool
to explain the fundamentals of nature I feel it may be a bit worn out. This
is just one of the reasons I feel that GR might need a little update (but
I'm not sure and that is why I'm trying to put it into conceptual terms that
are modern and adjustable, see original posting and header?
Justify the inclusion of a lagrangein in a definition of GR up to and
including c and mass up to event horizon otherwise I must conclude that
your definition was nothing more than pompous posing.

| 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

As this theorem includes lagrangeians the same comments apply.

I would try and debate with you the validity of a lagrangeian if the
space/time it was being applied to had been deformed\curved into an ellipse
by motion or mass but we seems so far apart on this matter and your views
are based on such old thinking that I doubt we can communicate unless you
are prepared to examine your fundamental knowledge base for
misunderstandings in a variable time/distance cosmos.

| > 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.
|

This presumably means that you think charge is not an aspect of energy ?

This seems to contradict your ealier statement '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'

Which might be a reason that I don't take your statements to seriously as
they seem riddled with misconceptions and contradictions.

--
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?






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GR ?
    ... use Pythagoras's theorem and energy can be defined using Noethers theorem. ... > Is this is how you justify using a lagrangeian and its derivatives as some ... > |> Thirdly I have no idea what time symmetry in that context means so ... > This presumably means that you think charge is not an aspect of energy? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR ?
    ... modern definition of energy as the conserved Noether charge related to time ... > Are lagrangeian based on Pythagoras's and Euclidean geometry or GR ... If there is an excess of electrons the body is ... That is the point - if you wish to discuss physics then you should stick to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)