Re: GR ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121448474.19713.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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 ?

I am claiming something that is totally obvious except to the cranks that
post here. A mathematical theory contains logical deductions called
theorems. If the theory is found by experiment to be true to high accuracy
then the theorem is true to high accuracy - which is the reason surveyors
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
> sort of definition in GR ?
>

Learn some basics - theories are not definitions - they often contain
definitions - but they are not definitions.

>
> |
> | > 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. {:-)

On the grounds of those who have some intelligence that may be reading this
stuff.

>
> | 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.

Quite evading - the above has nothing to do with the definition of energy.

>
> 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.

Quit evading - that has nothing to do with the symmetries of a lagrangeian.

>
> | > 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 ?
>

It means it has nothing to do the with modern definition of energy and is
simply another attempt at your usual tactic of evasion.

>
> 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'

Quit evading - in this context Noether charge is nothing to do with electric
charge other than they both contain the word charge. And if you do not
understand the terms well enough to know that post back when you have done a
bit of investigation.

Bill

>
> 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 ?
    ... |> Secondly it refers to a mathematical theorem proving a physical reality. ... 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 could ... | associated with symmetry in time is called 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)