At Rest with our Hubble view

[Undefined]

They teach something that you clearly don't know and will never know. Because you spend all your time trolling and posturing instead of learning.

Is it possible that you still can't tell the clear difference between observables (motions in space effects) and interpretations of said effects based on theoretical "spacetime" modeling of said observable effects?


They teach theory. The rest is your claims for mainstream which mainstream does not make for itself. Read that whole post and consider it in the context of what you keep repeating as if it is mainstream. It is not. It is all in your own mind.

Since you willfully ignore and evade the whole thrust and context of my last post, your lame insults are neither here nor there. Good luck.

 

[Tach]

They teach theory.

They teach. You are incapable of learning because you spend all your time posturing as if you knew the subject matter.
Experimenters use the teachings and setup up experiments that produce measurable effects, confirmation of the teachings.
Keep trolling, you'll never learn anything at this rate.

 

[Undefined]

They teach. You are incapable of learning because you spend all your time posturing as if you knew the subject matter.
Experimenters use the teachings and setup up experiments that produce measurable effects, confirmation of the teachings.
Keep trolling, you'll never learn anything at this rate.

It is your own 'crank' claims that are in question, not their teachings according to theory. Your nebulous accusations and personal put-downs tactics have lost all power to protect you from your own over-reaches in pretending to speak for mainstream and make claims for mainstream which mainstream does not make for itself. Your tactics won't work anymore, Tach. See you round.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Surely, I have no patent on such a form of greeting?

You've got patent on more than that. It dawned on me what thread I had this conversation in. And then it clicked: RC, right?

never conducive to clear thinking or polite discourse on the objective issues.

Better than polite is frank.

So please excuse me if I don't take your bait, A-Id.

Right. Like I brought the can o' worms.

As for the rest: did you not read and understand what I pointed out is the difference between: (etc etc)

Yes got all that. Measurements are measurements. The rest is either calibration or math.

In your opening comment, you essentially agree that gravitational energy is a valid concept.

It's called the gravitational potential for a reason, RC.

And also that time varying fields can be considered as energy density fluctuations/perturbations of that gravitational energy field. Thanks.

G waves involve a point source. There is no surface across which to evaluate a "flux density", so all of that goes away. There's just path loss , which is very severe, modulated by the rotating object (or constellation) with its corresponding sinusoidal signature.

[Tach] denies the existence of gravitational energy gradients/density-variations in the space surrounding gravity-field/well generating objects.

I didn't follow that discussion but I would imagine Tach would think that requiring a gradient across non-Euclidean space would be rather redundant.

 

[Tach]

Maybe you should explain to Tach what's what on that aspect so he won't keep making his spurious 'corrections' accompanied by insults and accusations of 'crank ideas' while he denies the existence of gravitational energy gradients/density-variations in the space surrounding gravity-field/well generating objects.

Hmm, let's deflete your pretender's hot air balloon with a simple exercise: the gravitational potential is $$V=-\frac{GM}{r}$$. Calculate the gravitational energy gradient and the gravitational energy gradients/density-variations using the formula I gave you for the gravitational potential. Put up or shut up.

 

[arfa brane]

Does anyone here know what the difference is between gravitational potential and gravitational energy?

(I do: there is no difference, they mean the same thing).

 

[Tach]

Does anyone here know what the difference is between gravitational potential and gravitational energy?

(I do: there is no difference, they mean the same thing).

Apparently , you don't:

1. Gravitational potential is $$-\frac{GM}{r}$$. It does NOT have units of energy, so it cannot "mean the same thing" as energy.
2. Gravitational energy is $$-\frac{GM dm}{r}$$. See here for example.

 

[arfa brane]

Tach: you are wrong, once again.

The first equation is correct if what you want is gravitational potential. The second equation has units of joules, so it's properly called gravitational potential energy.
Gravitational potential is often (confusingly) called gravitational energy, which is NOT the same thing as potential energy (gravitational or otherwise).

 

[Tach]

Tach: you are wrong, once again.

LOL.

The first equation is correct if what you want is gravitational potential. The second equation has units of joules, so it's properly called gravitational potential energy.

.....and, contrary to your incorrect statement above, they are NOT the same thing, this is precisely why I corrected your error.

Gravitational potential is often (confusingly) called gravitational energy, which is NOT the same thing as potential energy (gravitational or otherwise).

What does this new mistake have to do with your initial mistake? No one in his right mind confuses gravitational potential with gravitational energy. On the other hand, gravitational energy and gravitational potential energy are two different names for the same thing.

 

[arfa brane]

On the other hand, gravitational energy and gravitational potential energy are two different names for the same thing.

No, actually that isn't true. Gravitational energy and gravitational potential are two different names for the same thing (depending on which book you're reading).

However, most authors tend to be clear about whether they mean (potential) energy per unit mass, or (potential) energy due to 'gravitational binding'.
What you're doing is claiming that you have the "correct" definition, when in fact the literature can be ambiguous (until of course, an equation makes it unambiguous).
It isn't the "big mistake" you think it is; the mistake is, once again, yours.

 

[brucep]

No, actually that isn't true. Gravitational energy and gravitational potential are two different names for the same thing (depending on which book you're reading).

However, most authors tend to be clear about whether they mean (potential) energy per unit mass, or (potential) energy due to 'gravitational binding'.
What you're doing is claiming that you have the "correct" definition, when in fact the literature can be ambiguous (until of course, an equation makes it unambiguous).
It isn't the "big mistake" you think it is; the mistake is, once again, yours.

The mistake is viewing gravity through the wrong theoretical model. Leads to really dumb arguments. GR is a theory which describes the natural path of objects thru the universe. The natural path is free fall. Over every segment of the natural path stuff like energy, momentum, and angular momentum are constants of the motion. They're conserved over every segment of the natural path. Gravitational binding energy is a 'figment' of somebody trying to reconcile GR with ingrained Newtonian concepts.

It's E/m. Energy per unit mass. It's what's conserved over the natural path because it's value is a constant of the motion. It's not a potential energy.

 

[arfa brane]

Gravitational binding energy is a 'figment' of somebody trying to reconcile GR with ingrained Newtonian concepts.

Perhaps, but gravitational binding energy isn't a figment of someone's imagination.

Tach appears to be saying he has the "correct" interpretation of gravitational potential vs gravitational energy. I'm saying that some authors use both terms to mean the same thing.

This can be easily checked: you or anyone else can google "gravitational energy".
Alternatively, just assume everything Tach says is true. (But please don't include me, because I don't believe it).

It's E/m. Energy per unit mass. It's what's conserved over the natural path because it's value is a constant of the motion. It's not a potential energy.

I know what it is. I know it's energy per unit mass. I've never claimed otherwise.

 

[quantum_wave]

The mistake is viewing gravity through the wrong theoretical model. Leads to really dumb arguments. GR is a theory which describes the natural path of objects thru the universe. The natural path is free fall. Over every segment of the natural path stuff like energy, momentum, and angular momentum are constants of the motion. They're conserved over every segment of the natural path. Gravitational binding energy is a 'figment' of somebody trying to reconcile GR with ingrained Newtonian concepts.

It's E/m. Energy per unit mass. It's what's conserved over the natural path because it's value is a constant of the motion. It's not a potential energy.

Thank you for that.

 

[quantum_wave]

Perhaps, but gravitational binding energy isn't a figment of someone's imagination.

Tach appears to be saying he has the "correct" interpretation of gravitational potential vs gravitational energy. I'm saying that some authors use both terms to mean the same thing.

This can be easily checked: you or anyone else can google "gravitational energy".
Alternatively, just assume everything Tach says is true. (But please don't include me, because I don't believe it).
I know what it is. I know it's energy per unit mass. I've never claimed otherwise.

Thanks for interjecting and correcting. It lead to a helpful exchange.

 

[quantum_wave]

This thread started in P&M, and when it started to swerve into Alternative Theories I "reported' a couple of posts that I thought were alternative, and privately, through the reporting function, asked that the thread be moved. Not long after that, as the nature of the content of the thread worsened relative to hard sciences, I asked in the open forum for it to be moved, and several people supported that request. I still would like to see it moved.

But until then, because several of the long time members who know as well as I do the kinds of things that are allowed and are not allowed in forum life, direct their complaints via straw men, to imply certain intolerable infractions are being perpetrated by me. I know, it is hard to believe someone with as clean a record as I have with the forum rules and moderators would be accused of violations by reputable and professional level members, but stranger things have happened.

These long time members of a professional status and of value to the hard science content of P&M seem to hope that they can influence an open and objective moderator to take action as if their claims were true.

For that reason, I am always honest about my background, I don't make claims that my posts are fact or reality, and I don't pretend to be competent in physics and math at anything close to a professional level. I'm a science enthusiast who has followed the popular media for decades, and have a good general understanding of much of the physics and cosmology that are commonly taught to professionals as they come up through their academic pursuits. I start threads in the proper forums and ask they be moved when people, including me, add posts that are not proper for that forum.

The pending action is for a moderator to move this thread in response to my requests. Expecting that to occur, I have moved the content into the alternative ideas that I am infamous for, but that are allowed in the appropriate forums. We will see if it gets moved or if I get an infraction which seems to have been called for, for posting alternative ideas in P&M.

When members object to a layman posting ideas and flavor those objections with hints and outright claims that certain intolerable infractions are being perpetrated, even an honest upright forum member can fall victim. That is a reality check.

(19681 tot. views)

 

[quantum_wave]

Relative to the Sweet Spot

Posting as if the thread will be moved from P&M as requested: Almost unnoticed and certainly not something that the P&M crowd will grant me, I have covered some territory in this thread. I went from asking why we can't consider the possibility of being at rest relative to the CMB and the "generalized" redshift, to recently introducing the concept of being at rest gravitationally, relative to the matter and energy of our Hubble view, i.e. relative to everything in the increasing volume of observable space that is causally connected to the big bang.

This hypothesis is that every set of objects in space has an associated sweet spot where the net gravitational potentials are equalized, a Lagrange point, and so when we are talking about a big bang arena sweet spot, it would be somewhere near the center of the finite expanding arena that is defined by the generalized redshift data and the cosmic microwave background. It is the gravity wave background, and I say "gravity wave" on purpose, not so you have to say it is "gravitational waves", but because am not talking about the same thing as you.

I moved my part of the discussion to quantum gravity. Not QG as expressed in the text books or in scientific papers, conferences, and theoretical physics, but quantum gravity as a layman concept. By that I mean that I am talking about my own personal views of the foundation of nature, the quantum realm of quanta, of quantum action, and of the natural motion of objects in space under the influence of quantum gravity. Let me call it "gravity" the way I see gravity, and not the way you see gravity. It is alternative thinking, not supported by anything more than the observational evidence and data of the scientific community, of my individual survey of the science media from books, the Internet, and forums, and of my own understanding unfettered by the rigor of your understanding.

Earlier, I posted several links on the topic of QG to open the discussion. The one about the problems with gravity wave detectors brought up the important and obvious point about "noise" problems with even the best detectors. There is a noise problem from many sources because the energy of the gravity waves is very tiny relative to the detection devices' ability to detect. And because of the inverse square law, we apply it generally, the distance matters. If we get to the point that we start detecting events, it may be a catastrophic event having to do with the collision of two neutron stars, or maybe it would have to do with a supernova.

You read the article right? Here's where I posted it: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3090883&viewfull=1#post3090883

To explain the sweet spot and my alternate ideas, it is useful to start by discussing the gravity wave energy profile of an event, referring to my view of gravity and not the official view. Spherical gravity waves are given off by objects when they change their relative motion, and the energy is determined by the relative change in motion. Information is contained in that spherical wave energy that traverses space at the speed of light. If you could put that into the context of the official view, it would be the gravitational waves that the detectors are designed to detect for catastrophic changes in relative motion.

My ignorant view is that the EFEs require input about the energy that describes the curvature of the spacetime of the space that an object is traversing, All of the objects in space help determine that curvature. It is the natural path of objects in free fall so to speak.

That is just part of the the gravity wave profile in my view. In addition, as part of the compete energy density scenario from my personal view, there is another component of gravitational energy. Every object, just by the fact that it exists, gives off spherical gravity waves that have a tiny amount of energy proportional to their energy content. The spherical gravity energy they give off is equal to the directional energy they receive from other objects to maintain their location in space, relative to all other objects. It is the energy of the quantum action going on that sustains the presence of particles and determines their natural motion.

The gravity wave profile then is the combination of the energy given off as out flowing spherical gravity waves of the object as if it was in its sweet spot, i.e. the natural energy of its mere presence, plus all of the spherically out flowing wave energy that is given off because the object is not in its sweet spot, i.e. its changes in motion relative to all other objects.

(19844 tot. views)

 

[Tach]

No, actually that isn't true. Gravitational energy and gravitational potential are two different names for the same thing (depending on which book you're reading).

False: gravitational energy and gravitational potential energy are the same thing.
You claimed that gravitational energy and gravitational potential are the same thing, this is clearly wrong. And you continue to claim it.

However, most authors tend to be clear about whether they mean (potential) energy per unit mass, or (potential) energy due to 'gravitational binding'.

While true, this has nothing to do with your initial and repeated mistake.

What you're doing is claiming that you have the "correct" definition, when in fact the literature can be ambiguous (until of course, an equation makes it unambiguous).

I made it clear with math from my first post, yet you persisted in your error.

It isn't the "big mistake" you think it is; the mistake is, once again, yours.

But you are making a different , much bigger mistake by claiming that gravitational potential and gravitational (potential) energy are the same. As long as you continue to pretend, you will never learn, arfa.

 

[Tach]

When members object to a layman posting ideas and flavor those objections with hints and outright claims that certain intolerable infractions are being perpetrated, even an honest upright forum member can fall victim. That is a reality check.

You mean that he got banned for trolling and that he returned in the form of a sockpuppet as Undefined.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Birds of a feather, Tach.

 

[arfa brane]

False: gravitational energy and gravitational potential energy are the same thing.

I disagree, and so will anyone else who plugs either of those terms into google: they will find that it depends on the definition being used.

You can't possibly be any kind of authority on the meaning of terminology; you've been wrong about too many things.

But you are making a different , much bigger mistake by claiming that gravitational potential and gravitational (potential) energy are the same.

No, I think in fact you're mistaken about that (big surprise there); I claimed no such thing. You're making things up, but other people can read what I posted and work that out for themselves.

Depending on whose definition you happen to be reading, gravitational energy and gravitational potential energy have different meanings, the important thing is to pay attention to the mathematical definition (especially since these terms are not unambiguous, as I may have mentioned already, a few times. And look, I've mentioned it once more. Maybe you'll get it this time).