Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pmb

  1. I'm geetting the feeling that my comment side tracked this thread so let's get back online, shall we?
  2. I briefly read something by Kip Thorne who said that it would requiretoo much exotic matter to create one.
  3. I think you might enjoy reading this http://www.eftaylor.com/leastaction.html#actionleast
  4. First off - You are willfully ignoring queries directed at you which are posted to deetermined why you're highjacking and ruining your own thread. You are violatingf forum rules by not staying on topic. I.e. from the forum rules thread You have willfully and anoyingly going off topic. Your new topic is also violating forum etiquette http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/ You have willfully ignoing others who are telling you that you're not making sense to them. Not being coherent is violating forum etiquette. According to the forum rules those
  5. pmb

    The Word "God"

    There was another thread in this subforum which had a thread called "Defining God." I read part of it and the first post seemed to be interesting - of course I'm finding it difficult to concentrate today. A while back I created a web page entitled The Word"God" and placed it here http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/religion/the_word_god.htm I'd love to hear some feedback on the content. Thanks. Best wishes, Pete
  6. I appologize for being a downer. Sometimes just getting it out can help me. It didn't work today. Sorry.
  7. How is this related to the topic of this thread? It's not useful to simply post something like this without stating how it's useful here. You can't simply assume that everybody has read and studied everyword of this thread. Just plopping it in as you did is quite irritating.
  8. Note: I am telling you this with the assumption that nobody will use it againts me and nothing that I say will go outside this forum. If my trust is violated then I ask the forum moderator to take appropriate action they see fit given the specifics. I amtrusting the moderators with my well being. Please don't let me down. I pay no attention to what those wack jobs say. I know the date that the Maya calendar ends and am looking forward to seeing the wackos will respond to the lack of anything happening that day. However, I'm going to admit something today that I never ever ever admit to
  9. Note: I'm not a moderator. But the moderator might chime in on this post since it's against forum rules. E.g. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/ Just a friendly note of caution to help you avoid being slammed. Good luck and best wishes, Pete
  10. The person coined that phrase is John Archibald Wheeler. The same person who coined the term black hole. Sometimes mass say to spacetime - "Don't curve". two examples are the vacuum domain wall and the cosmic straight Cosmic String. There is no spacetime curvature outside the location of the matter. E.g. assume the domain wall is in the xy-plain. Then outside the plane objects accelerate towards the plain. But outside the plain there is no spacetime curvature. However if you placed objects on each side of the wall the particles will accelerate towards the wall and, if placed just right, towar
  11. Yikes. It seems like yesterday that I saw that movie. There is no such word as neglify. Please tell me what you mean when you use it. What do you mean by gravity tends to zero? There can be two meanings to it. Potential function Phi(z) tends to zero Gravitational field g(z) tends to zero It's also possible to have Phi(z) --> 0 and g(z) remain constant. This is the case for a uniform gravitational field. Note: In what follows I will assume the gravitational field is uniform. This will make the problem easier to explain. Suppose the observer is at z = h and
  12. eric - What is neglify time supposed to mean? I.e. neglify as no meaning. So what do you mean when you choose to use it?
  13. Time for some psycho-babble: - I'm sure that some people see you as closed-mined just as some people consider me to be closed minded. I also don't believe that either of us are closed-minded. I think it's a matter of perception. The person who said that has experiences which form his perceptions just as it does to all of us. To a large extent I believe that everyone has perceptions about everyone else which are formed from past experiences and I'm convinced that those experiences are embedded in our subconscience. Whew! That was a pretty labored response. I had a friend who I thought I kn
  14. Those diagrams are called embedding diagrams and they are used to visualize the spatial part of the metric. The one for a Schwarzschild geometry can be found in http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf see page 2-24 This is not aimed at the "law audience" (whatever that is. what is it anyway??) This diagram shows up in many very mathematical texts and journals. In fact it appears in the Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
  15. There is no basis on saying that time is being created is if time had that property. When you say that you must change the definition of time since the current one won't get you to your notion of it. Time is a measure of how things in our world change. The property of creation doesn't belong to that definition. And the idea of space being discrete is also meaningless. What you've said here just cannot be given a meaning swansont - You're being too gracious. Nothing of what he said can be given a meaning so it doesn't belong in speculations. And I'm saying that from a point of
  16. I'd like to recommend that two new forums be created under physics; Themodynamics, Electrodynamics and Philosophy of Physics
  17. From Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology by Richard C. Tolman, Dover Pub. (1987 version of 1934 text), page 29 This is an excellant explanation about what the cautions are regarding the nature of spacetime. I recall countless times people speaking about the speed at which a photon travels through spacetime. You can just as well talk about the speed at which light moves through spacetime as you can talk about rotating a clock into a rod.
  18. I guess that in my heart I was trying to get an idea of who means what when they use the phrase. I really don't know why I do that. In the past I've always regret getting into debates about definitions.
  19. First off - Your subject matter is differential geometry and it'sapplication to generl relativity. When I see someone say local spacetime is flat, I wince. The curvatue of a manifold is a local property. A local property such as this is primarily geometry in the small or local geometry. The smaller the spacetime you confine yourself to the more precisely you can measure the curvature. There are articles about this in the American Journal of Physics as well as in a few GR texts. E.g What is the principle of equivalence?, Hans C. Ohanian, Am. J. Phys. 45(10)), October 1977 I have
  20. Isn't there a way to delete a post I make? E.g. if I post in a thread and a hour later I decide that it was unwise that I posted it at all then I'd like a way to be able to delete the post. Other forums have that function and seem to use the same software so it seems like it should be possible for the software to be adjusted to make it so. I'm confused. Are you saying that most would go with Goldstein et al? I need to ask because earlier this morning when I first logged on I read it the other way.
  21. Ah ha!!! Now I recall the experiment. It's quite famous. It's the Kennedy-Thorndyke Experiment It's much more precise thanthe Michelson-Morely experiment of which it is a modified version of. See http://en.wikipedia....dike_experiment
  22. I find any kind of fake ID to be obnoxious. What is worse with this one is that he spent several follow up posts arguing with you as if that'd change yor mind rather than irritate you more. So we have someoene who is obnoxious and caused an irritating hijack of this thread. Thank for saying it. This is an interested thread. It's not quite acurate to claim that Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics. He was one of the founders of it. What Einstein didn't believe was the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. the probabilistic interpretation. You claim that your so-called "proof" of a
  23. I recall reading references to that kind of experiment but I can't recall the reference itself.
  24. To m Least etc. are not the words that should be used since one never knows when which of them applies unless one already knows and doesn't need to determine it. Yes. It was very very cool. My name is in it and it's online so you can verify it. See http://www.eftaylor....ront_matter.pdf Go to the page where the word Acknowledgements is printed. Then look in right column and read where it says This book is now used to teach a course in GR and black holes at MIT. And all those people who take that course read my name! It was published at the right time. In June of 2000 I was d
  25. The term/principle Least Action is inaccurate. The correct term should be the principle of stationary action. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action The integral in the variation doesn't need to be least, it merely requires the first variation of the action integral to be zero. There are no requirments on the second variation. This can also be found in Classical Mechanics - Third Edition, byGoldstein, Poole and Safko, Addison Wesley (2002), page 35 Eq. (2.1). The itegral is I = integrl L dt and the following words after that integral are I believe this is prove
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.