I think you are wrong here.
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
I think you are wrong here.
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
...meaning that the gravitational potential is NOT the same thing as gravitational energy. DUH.
Again you are wrong.
Gravitational energy is the potential energy associated with the gravitational field.
Nowhere does it say that gravitational energy is the same as gravitational potential.
You and arfa brane share the same crackpot ideas, gravitational energy energy is not the same thing as gravitational potential. You two help each other in digging yourselves deeper.
What do you mean by " gravitational potential", if it is not the same as "gravitational potential energy of a unit mass".
For the record, sometimes people don't understand that being at rest relative to the CMB is not special. You can be at rest to it at any point in the arena.
Here is a typical discussion on the topic from the Internet: "The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!"
"However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics."
That is consistent with my mention of being at rest relative to the CMB.
(20773 tot. views)
Here is a typical discussion on the topic from the Internet: "The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!"
"However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics."
That is consistent with my mention of being at rest relative to the CMB.
(20773 tot. views)
That discussion is incorrect, because you will never be at rest relative to a photon. In the "reference frame of the CMB", one would see the CMB as isotropic as possible.
It said "photons". There are photons in the CMB coming and going in all directions. To be at rest relative to the CMB, the ones coming from all directions are at the same frequency, and the associated temperature is ~2.7 K. When you move relative the CMB background, the photons coming from the direction of motion will appear to have higher frequency, and the temperature that you measure in that direction will be higher than the monopole 2.7 K.
In physics there are two (and only two) kinds of energy: potential energy and kinetic energy.
Gravitational potential is the energy 'stored' in a unit mass, and depends on position, it has units of joules per kilogram. Gravitational potential energy has units of joules, so the conventional meaning is that these are different.
Gravitational energy is ambiguous: it depends on who defines what it is and how. Some authors equate gravitational potential and gravitational energy. This can be verified by reading say, a few dozen articles or textbooks. That is, there are more authoritative references than Tach at sciforums (but, you already knew that, didn't you?).
In short, IT DOESN"T MATTER what Tach thinks. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks they "should be", because energy is energy, and gravitational potential is energy per unit mass.
Gravitational potential is the energy 'stored' in a unit mass, and depends on position, it has units of joules per kilogram. Gravitational potential energy has units of joules, so the conventional meaning is that these are different.
Gravitational energy is ambiguous: it depends on who defines what it is and how. Some authors equate gravitational potential and gravitational energy. This can be verified by reading say, a few dozen articles or textbooks. That is, there are more authoritative references than Tach at sciforums (but, you already knew that, didn't you?).
In short, IT DOESN"T MATTER what Tach thinks. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks they "should be", because energy is energy, and gravitational potential is energy per unit mass.
For the record, there may be people who object when I put some supposedly contributing members on ignore. I do it so that I can break the flame cycle. They flame and say I'm ignorant, an imbecile, idiot, or crank, I respond and say I'm not, ... and well, you get the idea. Better to put them on ignore for awhile if they won't address my topic, than to let them get me off topic and into a flame war. Usually the first "ignore" lasts three days, and after that if they do get on topic, then that was the goal. Maybe they won't come back, and that is fine.
I never put someone on ignore for just one or two little flames. It has to be a history of disparagement and flames. I know my alternative ideas invoke disdain and even the most civil of us can light into a flame now and then, so I am tolerant. I aways give them more than one chance to talk civilly and on topic before I press the button.
If I am ignoring someone, from time to time I peek to see if they actually mention something on topic. It happens sometimes in between the disparaging continuation of the flames, and I do address their on topic comments if they are pertinent. Stupid questions are ignored. Constructive content welcomed.
I'm conducting a thread to convey and discuss my ideas that are not mainstream, and so some ideas don't agree with the rigorous understanding of defenders of the mainstream. I just don't want to argue your theoretical physics which is extremely well supported by experimental evidence, and has not been falsified over long periods of time. I have no new observations or data to falsify them; they just leave open many questions. They don't answer my questions and so I hypothesize.
For me this is a hobby, not a profession so I want to enjoy it. I don't enjoy some people more than others. I have a so called model which is layman hypotheses that present my chosen answers to the questions science cannot answer, and as a result, my so called model answers my questions to my satisfaction, is internally consistent, and is not inconsistent with observations and data, or so that is my claim.
I never put someone on ignore for just one or two little flames. It has to be a history of disparagement and flames. I know my alternative ideas invoke disdain and even the most civil of us can light into a flame now and then, so I am tolerant. I aways give them more than one chance to talk civilly and on topic before I press the button.
If I am ignoring someone, from time to time I peek to see if they actually mention something on topic. It happens sometimes in between the disparaging continuation of the flames, and I do address their on topic comments if they are pertinent. Stupid questions are ignored. Constructive content welcomed.
I'm conducting a thread to convey and discuss my ideas that are not mainstream, and so some ideas don't agree with the rigorous understanding of defenders of the mainstream. I just don't want to argue your theoretical physics which is extremely well supported by experimental evidence, and has not been falsified over long periods of time. I have no new observations or data to falsify them; they just leave open many questions. They don't answer my questions and so I hypothesize.
For me this is a hobby, not a profession so I want to enjoy it. I don't enjoy some people more than others. I have a so called model which is layman hypotheses that present my chosen answers to the questions science cannot answer, and as a result, my so called model answers my questions to my satisfaction, is internally consistent, and is not inconsistent with observations and data, or so that is my claim.
You may have read my post on "Realtive to the Sweet Spot". It is probably safe for me to assume that you aren't interested in getting into my alternative discussion, and that is fine, but do you have any comments about it in regard to the two kinds of energy, and if they are both handled in my layman fashion?
Here, here! Does "at rest" convey gravitational potential energy per unit mass?
So he feels like he's qualified to tell us what the WMAP experiment measured and how they did it. Now that's 'the' interesting subject. Experimental strategy and tactics.
Why not just cut to the chase and tell us all just what you think this sweet spot is. Tell us what this super special, one of a kind, place in the arena we called the universe is. It sounds like you think this sweet spot is a place that is essentially the center of the universe. But I am just guessing about what you mean. Please be more specific.
I am distinguishing between the center if the universe and the center of gravity of our big bang arena. I have corrected you before about how I distinguish between the two.
You spent days trying to debunk me after saying how you have debunked some famous hoax, and went away saying you were done with me. Now you are back. What's happenin' with you nowadays. You seem to be taking some classes. Are you talking at me or with me?
Actually this is wrong as well but it is also irrelevant to showcasing your errors.
So, these are two DIFFERENT entities. Therefore what you said in post 946 is WRONG. Took only 50 posts for you to realize your error.
No one is as crank as you to do that. Have you been tested for hallucinations?
There is no "center of the universe". Nor is any "center of gravity of our big bang". You are simply posting BS.
Nope, both you and arfa brane are posting crackpot stuff, this is why you agree with each other.
I just wanted to know where you are going with this. I know that the thread was started as a question that some how relates to your so called model / hobby. Why dole out tiny isolated and therefore cryptic bits of information ever few weeks. It seems like you are concealing something from the participants here. I just think you should come out with it and tell us what this whole thing is about.
What is special about the sweet spot and why should it be important? I see that you think it would be the "gravitational center of the universe" and I guess that is different from the "center of the universe". (Neither of which exist in modern physics.) Tell us why the two are different and why that should matter to you or anyone else. Where are you going with this?
I suspect you are not good at reading or you are interntionally acting confused. Read what you wrote and what I said and see if you think you paid attention to what I said. And I am conducting this thread in the fashion that it makes the most sense to me. It was started to get input from the P&M crowd on the CMB, the redshift, and being at rest relative to them. When you took it off of P&M and injected your fantasy, I asked it to be moved out of P&M. It was you that did that wasn't it? Or should I go back and confirm that? Sometimes I get you and Prof.Layman confused.