Re: GR ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121520145.28112.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:_nXBe.49633$oJ.31804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:1121448474.19713.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:G8CBe.48783$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 ?

Just to elaborate a bit further on what is totally obvious - of course I am
not claiming Pythagoras's theorem holds in GR (such a comment is an obvious
red herring for the purposes of evasion - it does not hold generally -
although for cases of weak fields it does to a high degree of accuracy) - I
am claiming it holds in Euclidian geometry which experiment shows holds to a
high degree of accuracy in the situations applicable to surveyors. And
exactly the same for Noethers theorem - all current fundamental physical
theories are known to be expressible in terms of lagrangians (as the sum
over histories view of QM shows it must be) which is the reason the modern
definition based of Noethers theorem can be used - just like Euclidian
geometry holds to a high degree of accuracy in surveying. - hence
Pythagoras's theorem can be used. Now again what is your objection to the
modern definition of energy as the conserved Noether charge related to time
symmetry so you have a justification for wanting to create your own?

> |
> | 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.
>
> That is avoiding the question Bill.{:-)
>
> |
> | >
> | > 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.
>
> Again avoiding the question ' some sort of defintion in GR' try again Bill
> {:-)
>
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > 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 ?
>
> Again not answered.
>
> | >
> | > 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.
>
> It may not be in your mind Bill but it may be relevent to its use in GR.
>
> |
> | >
> | > | > 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.
>
> Again not answered
>
> |
> | >
> | > 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.
>
> Well I hope there are some who are intelligent enough reading this group
to
> parse that up as you seem to have at least two definitions of charge and a
> new definition of energy.
>
> For those who might be confused by Bills statements, claims and
> definitions.
>
> ENERGY:- A measure of a system's ability to do work. Like work itself, it
is
> measured in joules. Energy is conveniently classified into two forms:
> potential energy is the energy stored in a body or system as a consequence
> of its position, shape, or state (this includes gravitational energy,
> electrical
> energy, nuclear energy, and chemical energy); kinetic energy is energy of
> motion and is usually defined as the work that will be done by the body
> possessing the energy when it is brought to rest. For a body of mass m
> having a speed v, the kinetic energy is mv^2/2 (classical) or (m - m_0)c^2
> (relativistic). The rotational kinetic energy of a body having an angular
> velocity w is Iw^2/2, where I is its moment of inertia.
> The *internal energy of a body is the sum of the potential energy and
> the kinetic energy of its component atoms and molecules.

If you agree with the above why do you want to create your own?

>
> CHARGE :- A property of some *elementary particles that gives rise to an
> interaction between them and consequently to the host of material
> phenomena described as electrical. Charge occurs in nature in two forms,
> conventionally described as positive and negative in order to distinguish
> j between the two kinds of interaction between particles. Two particles
that
> have similar charges (both negative or both positive) interact by
repelling
> each other; two particles that have dissimilar charges (one positive, one
> negative) interact by attracting each other. The size of the interaction
is
> determined by *Coulomb's law.
> The natural unit of negative charge is the charge on an *electron, which
> is equal but opposite in effect to the positive charge on the proton.
Large-
> scale matter that consists of equal numbers of electrons and protons is,
> electrically neutral. If there is an excess of electrons the body is
> negatively
> charged; an excess of protons results in a positive charge.
> A flow of charged particals, especialy a flow of electrons, constituetes
an
> electric current.
> Charge is measured in coulombs, the charge on an electron being 1.602 x
> 10E-19 coulombs.

And law always means those found on statute books so that when physicists
talk about physical law they are wrong? Basic fact of language - words
often have multiple meanings depending on context.

Bill

>
> ENERGY(Bill) ?????? Please fill in Bill
>
> CHARGE (Bill) ??????? Please fill in Bill
>
> CHARGE NOETHER ?????? Please fill in Bill
>
> NOETHER'S THEOREM
> Noether's theorem Every continuous symmetry under which the
> *Langrangian (or *Hamiltonian) is invariant in form is associated with a
> ''conservation law. For example, invariance of a Langrangian under time
> displacement implies the conservation of energy. Not all conservation laws
> are associated with continuous symmetries, since some conservation laws
> are associated with *topology, particularly for *solitons. It does not
> automatically follow that if there is a conserved quantity in a .classical
> field theory associated with Noether's theorem, there is a conserved
> quantity in the corresponding *quantum field theory; this raises the
> possibility of an anomaly. Noether's theorem was stated in 1918 by the
> German mathematician Amalie Emmy Noether (1882-1935).
>
>
> RED HERRINGS ? to my original post Bill {:-)
>
> |
> | 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 ?
    ... Very good Bill I really thought that this was your claim and I am very glad ... | modern definition of energy as the conserved Noether charge related to ... If there is an excess of electrons the body is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >>Apparently they do Bill. ... Please tell me you counted the photons. ... work function other than the energy required to remove the electrons ... the energy of the emitted photons impinging on the surface ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >>Apparently they do Bill. ... Please tell me you counted the photons. ... work function other than the energy required to remove the electrons ... the energy of the emitted photons impinging on the surface ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 2015
    ... You are not in charge, ... As to lord Mook, and others of your kind, I think that you're all ... energy that reaches the surface of Earth isn't the WorldFactBook 346 w/ ... I am not Jewish and I have no Jewish tradition ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > Bill Hobba wrote: ... Please tell me you counted the photons. ... > work function other than the energy required to remove the electrons ... the energy of the emitted photons impinging on the surface ...
    (sci.physics)