On 2/2/2014 3:17 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
It's funny because this came up for me first because I speculated with some
guys
(and dolls) a lot nearer your level than mine - maybe 3/4 years back - that
spacetime had a definite geometry. They came back very firm it did not.
That even
between the Earth and the Sun you couldn't look at it that way. I must say I
couldn't accept what they were saying and said so, because for me, the
geometry
would be very clear that there was this huge gravity well oneside, and this
relativily tiny one the other (earth).
Dunno what was meant by "geometry". Einstein's equations relate the metric
of
spacetime to the location of stress energy. That seems plenty definite to
me. Of
course in application it's just a model and one neglects various effects
thought to
be small, e.g. gravity waves coming in from far away.
ok maybe we can bridge this. I'm naively taking the most popularized visual metaphor of
Einstein's theory. The mattress as it were, with the steel ball laying upon it as it
were, and the indentation that ball puts in the mattress as it were, and then the little
animation that often comes next, of the mattress now a plane represented by two sets of
respectively parallel lines, each set normal to the other resulting in little squares,
the indentation now the distortion of those squares and the animated part the
much littler ball rolling around the indented section.
if that's good enough that you can do the bridging work from where I am to where things
need to be for you to provide an answer that is within the limits of what you're
prepared to give in this sort of situation, then, fabulous :o)
That's not too bad a picture. It's mainly misleading in that it's time that's warped.
There's more proper time nearer the Earth than farther away. That's what makes things
"fall down" when they are on inertial paths. But that really doesn't bear on the question
of whether the geometry is definite or not. Do you know what they meant by it not being
definite? Were they just talking about the possible quantum fluctuations in the metric?
Were they talking about general coordinate transformations? or what?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.