At Rest with our Hubble view

[Tach]

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.

See, this is your problem, you try learning physics by google. The language of physics is math.

You can't possibly be any kind of authority on the meaning of terminoology;

This is not a terminology issue, the math says that you are flat wrong. Yet, you continue to dig yourself deeper. Have a shovel, arfa...

you've been wrong about too many things.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.

You are not only wrong, you are lying as well. Here is your exact claim:

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).

Since the language of physics is math, and not your inept babbling, here is the mathematical explanation, irrefutable:



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 , on the other hand, is $$-\frac{GM dm}{r}$$. See here for example.

 

[arfa brane]

Oops, well, I guesss that's what empty claims do for you. Let's rename things but keep the definitions:

1. Gravitational energy is $$ - \frac {GM} {r}$$ . It does NOT have units of energy, so it cannot "mean the same thing" as energy.
2. Gravitational potential energy , on the other hand, is $$ - \frac {Gm_1m_2} {r} $$.

Same math, different labels. As I've mentioned a few times, what the formulas are called can be ambiguous. It pays to make sure what a particular author means when they use a term such as "gravitational energy".

 

[Tach]

Oops, well, I guesss that's what empty claims do for you. Let's rename things but keep the definitions:

1. Gravitational energy is $$ - \frac {GM} {r}$$ . It does NOT have units of energy, so it cannot "mean the same thing" as energy.
2. Gravitational potential energy , on the other hand, is $$ - \frac {Gm_1m_2} {r} $$.

Same math, different labels.

LOL, how is $$ - \frac {GM} {r}$$ "same math" as $$ - \frac {Gm_1m_2} {r} $$?

 

[arfa brane]

Tach: I defined what most authors call "gravitational potential" as "gravitational energy". I'm not the only one on the planet who can do this.
It's actually quite easy: you just say "gravitational energy is the potential energy per unit of mass" (sometimes this potential energy is defined mathematically as mgh, where h is a "height").

 

[brucep]

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. These two equations of motion are revealing

Newton

1/2(dr/dt)^2 = E/m - [-M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2]
E/m and L/m are both constants of the motion. E/m is the total energy per unit mass and L/m is the angular momentum per unit mass. Both conserved over the natural path.

Schwarzschild

(dr/dTau)^2 = (E/m)^2 - (1-2M/r)[1+(L/m)^2/r^2]

The Newton is a weak field approximation. Both E/m and L/m are constants of the motion and M is an invariant in both models.

 

[brucep]

Tach: I defined what most authors call "gravitational potential" as "gravitational energy". I'm not the only one on the planet who can do this.
It's actually quite easy: you just say "gravitational energy is the potential energy per unit of mass" (sometimes this potential energy is defined mathematically as mgh, where h is a "height").

It's not the potential energy per unit mass. It's the total energy per unit mass.

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. These two equations of motion are revealing

Newton

1/2(dr/dt)^2 = E/m - [-M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2]
E/m and L/m are both constants of the motion. E/m is the total energy per unit mass and L/m is the angular momentum per unit mass. Both conserved over the natural path.

Schwarzschild

(dr/dTau)^2 = (E/m)^2 - (1-2M/r)[1+(L/m)^2/r^2]

The Newton is a weak field approximation. Both E/m and L/m are constants of the motion and M is an invariant in both models.

 

[arfa brane]

This is what hyperphysics says:

Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field.

--http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

 

[Tach]

Tach: I defined what most authors call "gravitational potential" as "gravitational energy". I'm not the only one on the planet who can do this.

No, you are the only ignorant on this planet who claims that $$\frac{GM}{r}$$ and $$\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}$$ are the "same math". You got the shovel, now you have the pick axe as well.

It's actually quite easy: you just say "gravitational energy is the potential energy per unit of mass"

You keep digging yourself.

 

[Tach]

This is what hyperphysics says:
--http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Nowhere do they agree with your crackpottery , that gravitational potential and gravitational energy are the "same". You are going to the same school as Farsight.

 

[arfa brane]

No, you are the only ignorant on this planet who claims that $$\frac{GM}{r}$$ and $$\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}$$ are the "same math".

That isn't what I claimed, you ignorant asshole.

If you can't post relevant responses, why bother? Wait, I know why you bother, you aren't interested in anything more than patting your overinflated ego on the back about how you aced another one, right?

You're possibly the most ignorant person I've ever encountered. I seriously doubt you have any friends. You have no idea what the word "discussion" means, but you're convinced you have the authorative definition of just enough to throw around and look only half stupid. But you look completely fucking stupid instead. Well, that's my job done here then.

 

[Tach]

No, you are the only ignorant on this planet who claims that and are the "same math".

LOL, this is exactly what you claim. You are posting crank stuff. When you get corrected, you become beligerant.

 

[Tach]

Oops, well, I guesss that's what empty claims do for you. Let's rename things but keep the definitions:

1. Gravitational energy is $$ - \frac {GM} {r}$$ . It does NOT have units of energy, so it cannot "mean the same thing" as energy.
2. Gravitational potential energy , on the other hand, is $$ - \frac {Gm_1m_2} {r} $$.

Same math, different labels.

You are promoting crackpottery.

 

[arfa brane]

Tach: fuck off. Go and have a wank, you'll feel a lot better.

 

[Tach]

That isn't what I claimed, you ignorant asshole.

Let me refresh your memory: this is exactly what you claimed. When you are proven wrong you get abusive. Doesn't help your cause, you could have admitted to error and be done with it.

But you look completely fucking stupid instead. Well, that's my job done here then.

Look at your posts....look in the mirror....

 

[quantum_wave]

...

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 the 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 the sweet spot, i.e. its changes in motion relative to all other objects.

(19844 tot. views)

I want to elaborate on what are now three aspects of our Hubble view mentioned in the thread and what they could mean in combination.

Two of them are well known observables, the redshift and CMB, and let's call them the universal background observables. The conclusion so far is that they both can be measured from any point in our big bang arena, and from the measurements of each, we can determine our motion relative to them. Therefore, hypothetically we could find a momentum from that location that would keep us at rest relative to both of them, no matter where we were.

Now let's talk about the gravitational profile that would produce the sweet spot. The hypothesis is that for any patch of space containing massive objects, if we could isolate it gravitationally from the surrounding space, there would be one sweet spot within that space that would be gravitationally neutral; the sweet spot. Because we are talking about the redshift and the CMB of the observable big bang arena, logically we should select all of the matter/energy that is causally connected to the big bang to establish the location of the sweet spot.

However, unlike the RS and the CMB, the sweet spot is unobservable and undetectable. So it is purely hypothetical, but the location of the sweet spot would be at the center of gravity of the big bang arena.

So we are going to have to wait for the gravitational wave detectors to be improved significantly, lol. But let's say we have perfected such a device that could detect the gravitational wave energy profile in all directions. Hypothetically we could then locate the sweet spot and move to it.

When we get there, we should be able to remain at rest relative to the redshift, the CMB, and the gravitational wave energy in that single location. That would make it special relative to any other point in the arena.

(20226 tot. views)

 

[Tach]

When we get there, we should be able to remain at rest relative to the redshift, the CMB, and the gravitational wave energy in that single location.

None of the three is a frame of reference, so it is not possible to be "at rest" wrt to any of them. Actually, the mere concept of being at rest wrt any of these three entities, is absolute nonsense. This is not Alternative Theory, it is Crank Theory.

 

[arfa brane]

Some of you may notice that the phrase I used: "same math, different labels", is referring to the fact that I used the same formulas as Tach, but called them different things.
Tach, obviously suffering from a desperate need to find fault, reads this as meaning I said two different formulas are the same, and I didn't say that. Bur I guess that's what happens when you make the mistake of trying to communicate with a fuckwit.

 

[quantum_wave]

... it is purely hypothetical, but the location of the sweet spot would be at the center of gravity of the big bang arena.

So we are going to have to wait for the gravitational wave detectors to be improved significantly, lol. But let's say we have perfected such a device that could detect the gravitational wave energy profile in all directions. Hypothetically we could then locate the sweet spot and move to it.

When we get there, we should be able to remain at rest relative to the redshift, the CMB, and the gravitational wave energy in that single location. That would make it special relative to any other point in the arena.

(20226 tot. views)

Here's what you do. You get yourself at rest relative to the CMB by moving around and measuring the background temperature in all directions. When it is 2.7 K in all directions you are at rest relative to the CMB, but you could be anywhere in the big bang arena.

Then you measure the directional gravitational wave energy density and move in the direction of lowest net directional wave energy density until it is the same in all directions; the sweet spot. Call me when you get there.

Note: In a finite big bang arena, you might find that you can get yourself at rest relative to the CMB, and start moving toward the lowest directional wave energy density and find yourself leaving the arena. In that case, go in the direction of the highest gravity wave energy density until it is equal in all directions, and there your are, back at the sweet spot.

You see, you are looking for the center of gravity. With a fine tuned gravity wave detector you should be able to notice that the gravity profile is taking you there or away from there. Your measurements in all directions should be equalizing instead of getting more and more out of balance.

(20555 tot. views)

 

[Tach]

Here's what you do. You get yourself at rest relative to the CMB

You cannot be "at rest relative to CMB" because one cannot attach a frame of reference to CMB. The third time this was explained to you.

 

[Tach]

Oops, well, I guesss that's what empty claims do for you. Let's rename things but keep the definitions:

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

...because $$ - \frac {GM} {r}$$ is not "energy" (it doesn't have the units of energy, so the dimensions are all wrong). $$ - \frac {GM} {r}$$ IS the gravitational potential. Potential is not energy, never was, never will, despite your repeated fringe claims. Gravitational energy is given by $$ - \frac {GMm} {r}$$. Keep digging yourself.