A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WIMPs AWOL Again?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old November 16th 11, 09:03 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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  
Old November 16th 11, 10:28 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:07 PM
Did Galileo/Cassini anti-nuke crowd go AWOL? dinges Policy 17 October 1st 03 03:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.