At Rest with our Hubble view

[brucep]

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.

Not in the 'real good' theory of gravity. E/m = total energy per unit mass. And that quantity is a constant of the motion over every segment of the objects natural path. It has nothing to do with g along the natural path of the object. g has no effect on the natural path of an object. Gravitational energy is 'lousy' term for gravitational radiation. Gravitational radiation propagates the g-field. That's what they're trying to directly detect in the local proper frame of the CalTech gravitational wave experiment. There's plenty of indirect evidence for gravitational radiation. There is no gravitational radiation in Newton's theory. That was the dumbest argument and you think you won. The reason you have a requirement for gravitational potential and all the other stuff associated with acceleration and force is because Newton's model predicts the total energy at boundary is 0. The total energy of an object at boundary is 1 and it's a constant of natural motion. So is momentum and angular momentum. The object doesn't give up any energy to the g_field. It doesn't give up any energy or gain any energy along it's natural path 'to anything' since it's conserved over the natural path. After Einstein accepted that time and distance are relative he knew he was going to have to fix Newton's model. He did a great job that I'm pretty sure Newton would appreciate GR.

I actually provided you with details for the derivation of the relativistic energy equation. The one that predicts what the objects energy is at boundary. On a scale of 0-1 it's 1. Most of chapter 1 is about the derivation of the energy equation. I don't get it why Tach wants to argue about this stuff other than to troll you. You need to figure out how to evaluate the physics rather than counting on heuristic attempts to find some level of correspondence with GR and the publics Newtonian perception of gravity.

 

[quantum_wave]

Not in the 'real good' theory of gravity. E/m = total energy per unit mass. And that quantity is a constant of the motion over every segment of the objects natural path. It has nothing to do with g along the natural path of the object. g has no effect on the natural path of an object. Gravitational energy is 'lousy' term for gravitational radiation. Gravitational radiation propagates the g-field. That's what they're trying to directly detect in the local proper frame of the CalTech gravitational wave experiment. There's plenty of indirect evidence for gravitational radiation. There is no gravitational radiation in Newton's theory. That was the dumbest argument and you think you won. The reason you have a requirement for gravitational potential and all the other stuff associated with acceleration and force is because Newton's model predicts the total energy at boundary is 0. The total energy of an object at boundary is 1 and it's a constant of natural motion. So is momentum and angular momentum. The object doesn't give up any energy to the g_field. It doesn't give up any energy or gain any energy along it's natural path 'to anything' since it's conserved over the natural path. After Einstein accepted that time and distance are relative he knew he was going to have to fix Newton's model. He did a great job that I'm pretty sure Newton would appreciate GR.

Thank you for that, its pretty clear. It confirms my wild ass thinking about what GR says to an extent, and is helpful.

 

[Cheezle]

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?

Oh come on. I remember when you started this thread and I immediately knew that you were fishing for justification of an aether. You theory requires it. I am not saying you ever intended at the beginning to talk about anything else but "at rest with our Hubble view." But it is clear now that you are taking it further with this talk of the sweet spot. I just wanted you to come out and tell us what you think this all means. But I see that won't ever happen. But I will tell you one thing. That some alternative theory type will soon discover this thread and wonder the same as me. And the only chance that person will have of know what you are getting at is to read everything you have ever written. And even then chances are slim of success. Why string this thread out over months and months with a slow dribble of info about what you think it means? Everybody knows that is a very poor format for communication.

 

[quantum_wave]

Oh come on. I remember when you started this thread and I immediately knew that you were fishing for justification of an aether. You theory requires it. I am not saying you ever intended at the beginning to talk about anything else but "at rest with our Hubble view." But it is clear now that you are taking it further with this talk of the sweet spot. I just wanted you to come out and tell us what you think this all means. But I see that won't ever happen. But I will tell you one thing. That some alternative theory type will soon discover this thread and wonder the same as me. And the only chance that person will have of know what you are getting at is to read everything you have ever written. And even then chances are slim of success. Why string this thread out over months and months with a slow dribble of info about what you think it means? Everybody knows that is a very poor format for communication.

You forgot to address my comment about your ability to read. Do you even have a clue about what I was getting at?

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

Yeah maybe we can crack this nut by reconfiguring the platform.
Hmmm. Couple of gravity wave densitomiters . . .
. . drone steering package


I can see the headline

HOW I SAVED A TRILLION IN RESEARCH

It's All About The 2.7K.

DIY/Indie Science Hobbyist Solves Big Bang Mystery Using Cellphone Calculator App

Prototype up for grabs on eBay
​

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 did have a followup question along those lines. I mean just look at those maps. Maybe he could find our position, show that it's stationary and, yeah, that would cut to the chase. Yeah lemme just look for the 2.7K

Wait, COBE's kind of messed up, let me check WMAP again . . .

OMG we are at dead center

(theramin music, the smell of buttered popcorn wafting in from the lobby)

There is no "center of the universe". Nor is any "center of gravity of our big bang". You are simply posting BS.

Party pooper

 

[Cheezle]

You forgot to address my comment about your ability to read. Do you even have a clue about what I was getting at?

As I have said before and others have remarked on, you are (to put it mildly) not very skilled at communication. Your posts are very wordy and have a low information content. And as to if I have a clue about what you are getting at, yes. I know where it all leads and have said so. It leads to your so called model / hobby, which is completely wrong in every way possible. I think I know why you think the sweet spot is important. But why not just tell us so we can all be absolutely sure what it is you are on about. I would be willing to bet that no one in this thread (maybe not even you) knows.

 

[Cheezle]

... I did have a followup question along those lines. I mean just look at those maps. Maybe he could find our position, show that it's stationary and, yeah, that would cut to the chase. Yeah lemme just look for the 2.7K

Wait, COBE's kind of messed up, let me check WMAP again . . .

OMG we are at dead center

(theramin music, the smell of buttered popcorn wafting in from the lobby)

Correction, I think QW is telling us that HE is at dead center. We all just orbit him.

 

[quantum_wave]

As I have said before and others have remarked on, you are (to put it mildly) not very skilled at communication. Your posts are very wordy and have a low information content. And as to if I have a clue about what you are getting at, yes. I know where it all leads and have said so. It leads to your so called model / hobby, which is completely wrong in every way possible. I think I know why you think the sweet spot is important. But why not just tell us so we can all be absolutely sure what it is you are on about. I would be willing to bet that no one in this thread (maybe not even you) knows.

Just so you will know, I referred to the center of our big bang arena, and I distinguish the arena from the greater universe. The big bang arena is finite and the universe is potentially infinite. As for the rest of your post, it is intentionally argumentative and antagonistic. I'll be ignoring you.

 

[Tach]

I don't get it why Tach wants to argue about this stuff other than to troll you.

Do you have the same difficulty as arfa brane in distinguishing between gravitational energy and gravitational potential?

 

[Cheezle]

Just so you will know, I referred to the center of our big bang arena, and I distinguish the arena from the greater universe. The big bang arena is finite and the universe is potentially infinite. As for the rest of your post, it is intentionally argumentative and antagonistic. I'll be ignoring you.

Yes I understand what you mean by arena. What I was asking is, why is the sweet spot important? You are always calling people trolls, but it seems clear to me that it is you that is trolling here. Or maybe trawling is a better word. I am starting to think that your goal is just to see how many views and how many posts you can get in your thread. And that is why you are intentionally vague in all your posts.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes I understand what you mean by arena. What I was asking is, why is the sweet spot important? You are always calling people trolls, but it seems clear to me that it is you that is trolling here. Or maybe trawling is a better word. I am starting to think that your goal is just to see how many views and how many posts you can get in your thread. And that is why you are intentionally vague in all your posts.

That snuck through just under the point that I pushed the "ignore" button. The point of the post called, "Relative to the Sweet Spot", is clear to me. Too bad I am such a poor communicator that you didn't get it. Come back in a few days and see if you have figured it out. As for the views count, it tells me the changing level of interest in the thread for my own benefit. It doesn't really tell me that anymore since the owners/administrators put in the fix to control spam bots. I think the views count still includes the spam attack but the administration has a fix in place that keeps their posts from being visible. It is like a ghost ban, where the spammer doesn't know the posts are not visible, I think. But I still can get a feel for that activity. And as for the ego trip you imply I have about views and post count, why don't you stop contributing to it, lol.

 

[brucep]

As I have said before and others have remarked on, you are (to put it mildly) not very skilled at communication. Your posts are very wordy and have a low information content. And as to if I have a clue about what you are getting at, yes. I know where it all leads and have said so. It leads to your so called model / hobby, which is completely wrong in every way possible. I think I know why you think the sweet spot is important. But why not just tell us so we can all be absolutely sure what it is you are on about. I would be willing to bet that no one in this thread (maybe not even you) knows.

What he says has no basis in reality. Regardless what he contrives, for argument, it's the mainstream theoretical models that bridge the gap between theory and experiment. Doing this stuff is not a hobby. Studying it can be a very rewarding intellectual hobby. He thinks he gets to be taken seriously just because he is alive. Appealing to 'some make believe' authority as a standard of good behavior. The chance he'll get a clue is close to nil. Ignorance is a choice.

 

[brucep]

Yeah maybe we can crack this nut by reconfiguring the platform.
Hmmm. Couple of gravity wave densitomiters . . .
. . drone steering package


I can see the headline

HOW I SAVED A TRILLION IN RESEARCH

It's All About The 2.7K.

DIY/Indie Science Hobbyist Solves Big Bang Mystery Using Cellphone Calculator App

Prototype up for grabs on eBay
​

I did have a followup question along those lines. I mean just look at those maps. Maybe he could find our position, show that it's stationary and, yeah, that would cut to the chase. Yeah lemme just look for the 2.7K

Wait, COBE's kind of messed up, let me check WMAP again . . .

OMG we are at dead center

(theramin music, the smell of buttered popcorn wafting in from the lobby)




Party pooper

That was a CLASSIC crank claim. It's what the internet has become for the intellectual recluse. You're starting to sound funny. I like it.

 

[arfa brane]

Wikipedia hints:

General relativity

In general relativity gravitational energy is extremely complex, and there is no single agreed upon definition of the concept. It is sometimes modeled via the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor[4] which allows the energy-momentum conservation laws of classical mechanics to be retained.

Addition of the matter stress-energy-momentum tensor to the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor results in a combined matter plus gravitational energy pseudotensor which has a vanishing 4-divergence in all frames; the vanishing divergence ensures the conservation law. Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate in general relativity, but the divergence of the combined matter plus gravitational energy pseudotensor is a tensor.

The reason you have a requirement for gravitational potential and all the other stuff associated with acceleration and force is because Newton's model predicts the total energy at boundary is 0. The total energy of an object at boundary is 1 and it's a constant of natural motion. So is momentum and angular momentum. The object doesn't give up any energy to the g_field. It doesn't give up any energy or gain any energy along it's natural path 'to anything' since it's conserved over the natural path.

Usually they teach you that gravitational potential energy is the work done on an object with mass, when the object is 'lifted' to some height (above the surface). So "the object doesn't give up any energy" suggests this work is energy "in the field".
Also that it only makes sense relative to some choice of position (the surface of the earth). But the surface of the earth isn't at zero potential, so it's an arbitrary zero-point, so any other point is too (including infinity).

This also implies that no work is done "by the field" if the object moves along a path which has constant potential (i.e transverse to abstract lines of force).

 

[brucep]

Do you have the same difficulty as arfa brane in distinguishing between gravitational energy and gravitational potential?

Stuff it troll.

 

[brucep]

Wikipedia hints:



Usually they teach you that gravitational potential energy is the work done on an object with mass, when the object is 'lifted' to some height (above the surface). So "the object doesn't give up any energy" suggests this work is energy "in the field".
Also that it only makes sense relative to some choice of position (the surface of the earth). But the surface of the earth isn't at zero potential, so it's an arbitrary zero-point, so any other point is too (including infinity).

This also implies that no work is done "by the field" if the object moves along a path which has constant potential (i.e transverse to abstract lines of force).

They taught you the Newtonian version. What I said is what the physics says according to the predictions of GR. The energy equation of SR is comprised of two constants of the motion, energy and momentum, and the invariant mass. At rest far away in flat spacetime

E=m

E/m=1.

Potential energy is a Newtonian classical concept. Newton predicts the energy equation is

E=T-V(x)

T=mv^2/2

V(x)=Potential energy associated with a position in a force field.

At boundary v=0 and V(x)=0. The total energy at boundary = 0.

Anyway this is really boring to me. Have a good one.

 

[Tach]

Stuff it troll.

When you are proven ignorant (which is often) , you become abusive.

 

[rr6]

E= m ergo EMRadiation = Mass.....2 Kinds Of Energy

Brucep..." of SR is comprised of two constants of the motion, energy and momentum, and the invariant mass. At rest far away in flat spacetime
E=m"

I appreciate the information when I my intuition tells me it is on the mark( hit-the-nail-on-the-head ).

E = energy and most often meant, at minimum, to be the more dissasociative, EMRadiational energy. Tho I suppose it can be high speed electrons( beta ) or other high speed fermions( Gamma/protons )

m = mass ergo an associative form of the more dissociative EMRadiation

E/m=1....Potential energy is a Newtonian classical concept. Newton predicts the energy equation is
E=T-V(x)....T=mv^2/2....V(x)=Potential energy associated with a position in a force field.
At boundary v=0 and V(x)=0. The total energy at boundary = 0.

Here at get lost as to the exact meanings. Previously tho, someone said there exists 2 kinds of energy;

potential and kinetic whereas I think of the first subcatagory of physical/energy as fermions( matter ) and bosons( force ).

Spacetime = "time is relative space" is what Brucep or someone stated.

This latter is/has sometimes been graphed as vetrical and horizontal line ex ' L '>

One way to see the two are related is to connect the two end points with a diagonal line and we enclose spatial area and define a triangle.

But is more of side tangent to Bruceps above comments, and the 2 kinds of enegy previously mentioned.

r6

 

[rr6]

"U"...U.."u"....u...........( field of concepts ) via texticons.....

quantum_wave..."Just so you will know, I referred to the center of our big bang arena, and I distinguish the arena from the greater universe. The big bang arena is finite and the universe is potentially infinite."

HI QW, I'm glad you clarifed there cause I was going to say, that, there can exist no kind of center to 2D area or 3D volume that is infinite. I may have mentioned that early on the first thread of yours I entered into here at Sci-forum.

You and I both have a greater "U"niverse concept usage--- I use the "U" texticon to specify such ---that is macro-infinite, however, whereas mine is non-occupied space ergo energyless and gravitationally energyless, whereas your macro-infinite space is occupied space of energy. I would state yours is full except that infinitety is inherently beyond the concept of a container or finite area or volume, where fullness can be attained.

To me, this scenario inherently violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics....eneryg cannot be created....

"U"niverse( most inclusive ) = cosmic laws, infinite non-occupied space and finite occupied space

Universe = finite occupied space and what you call our observed big bang arena.

universe = our individuaistic local personal sphere of influence-- barring EMRadiation and gravities potential endless reachability ----.

"u"niverse = ?

 

[quantum_wave]

Thank you for those posts r6. You do grasp the important aspects of my so called model and your comments are useful. We certainly will be talking more about your way of using "texicons" to convey the concepts.

This is a rather lengthy post to recap and set the discussion going forward, and you will see that it goes forward to the points that you have made.



http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3091611&viewfull=1#post3091611
About forum rules, acceptable and unacceptable posting, and straw men claiming false intolerable actions


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3091648&viewfull=1#post3091648
"Relative to the Sweet Spot"


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3091882&viewfull=1#post3091882
More about the sweet spot


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092004&viewfull=1#post3092004
Finding the sweet spot


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092148&viewfull=1#post3092148
To PhysBang
"Photons" not photon and the 360 degree Monopole ~2.7K
http://www.helsinki.fi/~lavinto/workshop/talks/SchwarzCPPP2013.pdf


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092178&viewfull=1#post3092178
Breaking the flame cycle

For the record: This thread is pending removal from P&M
I am posting as if it should be in Alternative Theories

To start the week, only Cheezle is on ignore at the moment to avoid perpetuating the flame cycle, and if you flame and disparage me, I won't respond to it.

I am posting alternative ideas, and have presented the concept of the big bang arena sweet spot. The only objection so far that was comprehensible was the straw man about WMAP and my use of the 360 degree monopole temperature of approximately 2.7K. As near as I can tell, the intention of that straw man was to claim I am ignorant of the science related to the CMB. I'm not, though my understanding is at a layman level from popular media, posted papers, Internet searches, books on my shelf or at the library, and decades of following related topics.

To recap, while the thread was conducted as a Physics and Math thread, the topics of at rest relative to the CMB and the generalized redshift were discussed. No consensus was reached but my view is that it is theoretically possible to be at a point in space that is for talking purposes "generally" at rest to both. That can occur at any point in the observable Hubble view.

I went on to hypothesize the presence of a gravitational sweet spot. It is based an my concept of the arena that encompasses the space that contains the matter and energy associated with the big bang. Within the arena is the content of the hypothesized big crunch that collapsed/banged to initiate the expansion that we observe today via the raw red shift data, as well as all of the matter/energy that the expanding arena has encountered and encompassed since the very instant after the big bang event.

The sweet spot hypothesizes that there are two aspects to the gravity profile in the arena. One is that as particles form in the expanding early environment they have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. That momentum is conserved as particles clump into gas clouds, as stars form and as galaxies form. Because particles have mass and both feel and emit gravity waves from the instant that they form, the gravity profile includes the gravity waves related to their mere existence, as well as the gravity waves associated with their interactions, i.e. the two components of the gravity profile of the arena.

In my post about "Relative to the Sweet Spot", I hypothesized that if there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the expanding big bang arena, then there is center of gravity, the same center of gravity that caused the preceding big crunch to form in the middle of the overlap space where two parent expanding arenas converged.

The sweet spot concept was used to help distinguish between the gravity waves associated with the mere existence of an object, and the waves associated with its relative motion to all other objects. I said that if it was "at rest" in the sweet spot at the center of gravity of our arena, it would feel and emit gravity waves. And I said that it also feels and emits gravity waves associated with the fact that it is not at the sweet spot, i.e. any object not in the sweet spot emits gravity waves that are both proportional to their individual contained energy, and to their motion relative to all other objects.

(21603 tot. views)