#91
|
|||
|
|||
does gravitational binding energy gravitate?
Eric Flesch wrote in news:mt2.0-23044-1321306837
@hydra.herts.ac.uk: On Mon, 31 Oct 11 07:11:54 GMT, Eric Flesch wrote: My stance is that they are both wrong. I've had time now to look over JT's gedankenexpirements and EG's site. And what I see is a house of cards. Basically if we start with the axioms of matter-energy and a flat 3-manifold, then we end up, fractally, with notions of gravity gravitating etc. Do you think the 'house of cards' comment have anything to do with the fact that everything you wrote after that was nonsense? The full Einstein field equations are nonlinear by their very nature. You can even see this when trying to create first order solutions while demanding the stress tensor be divergence free, in that you can't do it without including higher order contributions... My point is that by adjusting the axioms, we can get a simpler outcome. No, I don't have the solution, but I know a skunk when I smell it. Let me get this straight. You do not understand general relativity, but when presented with an aspect of it you don't like you think it stinks? Is this really sci.astro.research? There is no axiom to 'adjust'. This is a fundamental consequence of the strong equivalence principle. Change that and you don't have relativity anymore. JT's gedankens basically say that I would have a gedanken perpetual-motion machine because other gedankens (perfect springs, etc) could be used to make one, given my intitial stance. But if you need X to make X, then you have not truly made X. So I think JT's gedankens do not prove his point. Uh, what? Could you elaborate on how you feel you could turn gravitational binding energy into perpetual motion? The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy (when the concept exist and are relevant) both apply in general relativity. On that note, I'll bow out of this discussion, because I don't have the breakthrough. But if you read the literature of 100 years ago, you'll be struck by how many ladders were leaning against the wrong walls then. Guess what, today is no different. cheers, Eric Uh, what? Hold on now. If you are going to make a bunch of ridiculous statements then leave the discussion, why make the ridiculous statements at all? |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
does gravitational binding energy gravitate?
On Wed, 16 Nov 11, eric gisse wrote:
If you are going to make a bunch of ridiculous statements then leave the discussion, why make the ridiculous statements at all? You mean you want me to "discuss" things like: Let me get this straight. You do not understand general relativity ... False. Do you think the 'house of cards' comment have anything to do with the fact that everything you wrote after that was nonsense? False. But wait, let's bring out a real topic from a previous post: I wrote: (1) If "gravity gravitates", that should be translatable into a simple adjustment on the inverse square law, which hasn't been observed. Since binding energy will have the same distribution as the matter which generates it, I am unclear on how you think that'd alter the inverse square law. So your response is to dissemble by equating gravity to "binding energy" presumably not separable from the source matter. But of course gravity acts at a distance. If "gravity gravitates", then this extra gravitating would act across the whole gravitational field. So the inverse square law would be adjusted. If you say gravity at-a-distance does not gravitate, but gravity does gravitate, then it is you who are being unclear. Now I really have no more time to chase my tail (or yours) on this, but it is not for the reasons that you say. EF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Xenon100: No "WIMPs" | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | April 14th 11 09:39 AM |
Chris Lord (Brayebrook) gone AWOL? | Chris.B | UK Astronomy | 0 | November 18th 05 07:07 PM |
Did Galileo/Cassini anti-nuke crowd go AWOL? | dinges | Policy | 17 | October 1st 03 03:38 PM |