where I should have been allowed the decency of responding in that sadly derailed thread.
So rather than starting a new thread where you properly formalise the scenario you are interested in, showing the problem you claim exists through clear and precise logic, as I suggested you do, you start up a new thread to continue with more derailing?
If you wanted to get down to the details you should have started a thread talking about them. Instead this is just going to be more arm waving and complaining.
Huh? It is you assuming here. Where did I even so much as suggest that likes of yourself need such stimulation? Retract please - I will not tolerate being made to say what I have not.
You said
" presented as a stimulating challenge, especially to certain resident physics 'heavyweights'". It clearly frames your post as "Hey 'physics heavy weights', fancy a stimulating challenge?" and then when more of your post is read it is clearly a "I demand you jump through a bunch of hoops and provide a level of detail and specificity I'm not willing to do myself" type of post. This makes it clear the effort which is going to be needed to have a precise and detailed discussion is considerably higher than would be needed if you'd been competent/non-lazy enough to put in some formalisation. So what really is the draw for us 'heavy hitters' that would make us want to jump through all these hoops for you? Oh, it's a 'stimulating challenge' you say? Well that's different, we all need stimulating challenges and that's enough to make your unwillingness or inability to formalise your own challenge properly acceptable
So you and Tach asserted, and you continued to relentlessly assert below. What I would have considered a reasonable attitude would be to ask for clarification on any details of scenario that are genuinely not clear.
I did. I said that given the thread derailment and the lack of detail the thread was to be closed but you were welcome to start a new one in which you provide a formalised derivation of the problem you
claim exists. I told you what was necessary and rather than doing that you start a thread with more complaining.
Or more likely, give a reasoned, to-the-point argument setting out just precisely where and why any problems exist.
What a wonderful choice of words you have used. I asked you to give a clear, precise and methodical formalised derivation of the
problems you claim
exist within relativity and you haven't met that request. But not only that you complain
I should have given a reasoned, to the point argument setting out precisely where I see the problems in your post. See the hypocrisy here? I asked you for details of problems, you ignored me only to them ask
me to provide details of problems.
That is being reasonable - and genuine. Instead, you simply maintain a relentless negative tone, choosing to tackle the man rather than the ball.
I attacked both, the former because you failed to justify the latter and in failing to justify the latter you show you're unwilling to put in the effort you demand of others.
Just keep accusing me of being 'incoherent', 'lacking any feel for subject' etc. etc. Accuse me of being 'hand-wavy', and in supreme irony, do exactly just that yourself in adopting a relentless critical tone.
How was it supreme irony? I didn't attempt to provide a physics argument, you did. You assert something about relativity but you fail to give any quantitative formalisation to justify your assertion about relativity. You arm waved. I didn't try to make an argument about anything in relativity, so at no point did I make an arm wavy statement which I could have done with quantitative formalism. If I'd tried to respond to your claims about relativity but all I'd done was just arm wave and assert then you might have a valid complaint but I didn't respond to it. Instead I criticised your failure to present your claim properly and how you didn't deduce your conclusion using rigorous methodology but rather a sequence of flimsy wordy assertions.
If you'd started this thread with a quantitative construct of your claim and a precise and methodological derivation then we could be discussing the details right now. But we're not, as you carried on with the arm waving.
But never once so much as attempt to tackle the guts of what I maintain is a clearly enough presented gedanken experiment.
More laughable hypocrisy.
You failed to 'clearly enough present' your case. You were asked to do so, including by me, and you still haven't. Instead you've whined. I didn't run from you, I asked you to put in some effort you hadn't done. It's not exactly unreasonable, seeing as you were demanding the time and effort of 'heavy hitters' here.
If you're unable to properly formalise your thought experiment then you should say so. You should also then present your 'challenge' as a query, in the manner of "I don't know how to do the details of this scenario but could someone explain to me how to ....". Instead you concluded a fundamental flaw in GR exists, a flaw you couldn't actually show but just assert, and demanded time and effort from people who have opened a relativity book at some point in their lives.
And basically demanding, as you have below, that I present this as some full-blown academic treatise at expert general relativist level, replete with 'appropriate field equations for the metric'.
Where did I say that? I like how you complain when you think I misquote/misrepresent you and then do it to me.
If you think doing the relevant equations is 'a full blown academic treatist at expert general relativist level' when you're just showing how little relativity you've actually experienced. I didn't ask you for anything which an undergraduate would find unreasonable. Metrics, field equations, conservation of energy and/or momentum, all arise at undergraduate level and are covered in introductory GR books. Spinning disks are a common example and talking point in relativity literature too.
If you're unable to formalise the scenario then admit it and hold your 'conclusions' in a bit more of a questioning mind set.
What?! Why on earth is there a need to do that? It is genuinely not clear to you that what is being treated in #1 is one simple property of one part of stress-energy tensor. Namely, if a principal stress component is a source of gravity, then it's also a source passive gravitational mass, and inertial mass. Then - here's a simple example of what that means. Which I have provided. And that example - 'disc brake' scenario, genuinely stumps your comprehension? Pull the other one!
So you view it as 'simple' and yet you didn't go through the details? The best way to counter my complaints would have been to show you can do the details but instead you made this thread.
As for 'stumping my comprehension' once again I didn't say that but thanks for once again putting words in my mouth, despite you saying you 'won't put up with that' when you think I did it to you. You're hardly taking the moral high ground here. I'm familiar with spinning disk scenarios in relativity, along with plenty of other things in relativity but I don't think you are. I asked you to show you are, that your complaint wasn't just a disguised "I don't understand anything about relativity, including the mathematics, and this particular example seems odd to me so I claim relativity is wrong!". You want a quantitative response? Show you are capable of grasping it. Show you're willing to put in effort you demand of others.
Of course I don't always request someone shows a quantitative grasp before I show mine but given the general tone of your post, including the "heretic" bit, I suspected that any quantitative response would be incomprehensible to you, just like responding to Farsight or Motor Daddy with algebra is a waste of time. As such asking you to formalise your complaint and show methodically how you reached your conclusion provides you with an opportunity to show such a response wouldn't fall on deaf ears. Given you didn't start this thread with said quantitative formalisation but instead more whining I continue to hold my suspicion that you haven't got a clue how to do it.
See above comments. But on that score, all I need do to destroy that line of criticism is point to the 'famous' A-wal incoherent wall-of-text threads, and your enthusiastic, lengthy and detailed point-by-point replies, that went on page after page. Oh s**t - what do you know, try searching for them, and nowhere to be found! Looks like admin have been doing quite some housekeeping of late. Vacuuming up unwanted stuff. Maybe my turn next.
Awal was banned at some point, so his threads and posts vanish. I don't know who did it or when, as I was away from the forum for several weeks in a row, during which time it occurred.
Anyway, you obviously can and often are very specific and detailed in responding to even quite genuinely vague posts where it suits.
Again - I refer you to your manner of dealing with those amazingly wordy A-Wal threads, and similar, which gives the lie to above criticism.
Then explain your response to those A-Wal threads - and don't try and tell me you can't recall them.
You want to know why? It's your attitude, typified by comments like those in the previous quote, the 'what do you know, nowhere to be found', 'maybe my turn next' and the 'heretic' comments from the previous thread. You come across as someone who thinks they've got some deep insight and that the responses you get, ie shutting of threads, are somehow an act of desperation or fear from people when faced with your claims. You come across as someone with a deluded vision of their own capability/importance and last night I wasn't really in the mood to bother with you, the thread was awash with irrelevant posts and despite you being asked you'd failed to formalise
anything. Yes, perhaps if I'd had more energy or the right mindset I'd have spent the time to do all the formalism for you but I couldn't be bothered. But I didn't prevent you from starting a new thread, I even suggested it. But the tone of your post suggested that doing the formalism for you would only serve to enable you, giving you the excuse to tell yourself you've done something insightful or that you're really worth the response or that you're really doing physics because you're in a discussion where there's lot of technical detail, even if the detail is due to someone
else.
As such I thought "Fine, if he wants to talk about the specifics then he can show he can grasp them". If you cannot do the specifics then you shouldn't have the attitude about your 'conclusion' that you have, it is misplaced. If you cannot formalise what you said, which you have now called 'simple', then why should anyone else bother?
Dealt with that unreasonableness earlier. We are asking about just one thing - consequences of the passive gravitating mass behavior of matter under uniaxial stress, given what the stress-energy tensor assigns to stress. All this crap about needing to figure out the fully detailed curvature side of things is imo nonsensical. Why is there such a need in this case?
I didn't say anything about curvature. Chalk up
another case of you misrepresenting me. Jesus, do you have daily injections of hypocrisy or something?
You brought up the stress energy tensor, which links to the space-time stuff via the field equations. The conservation of momentum you also brings up is a specific property of the space-time metric (though I don't suppose you know that). Asking you to do that stuff, to show your workings, is not unreasonable. The conservation of momentum is linked to a specific property of the metric. You talk about the stress-energy tensor and it links to the metric by the field equations. As such what you're talking about is directly about what I asked you to give details of, though the fact you don't realise this suggests you are unaware of this.
Forgetting the unjustified polemic, you have gone back on that committment twofold. Firstly, by never waiting for me to come back with a chance to answer this tripe. And second, by locking the thread - killing it dead, rather than moving it to said backwater. Not true to your word.
You hadn't returned in more than a page and that page was utterly off topic. Rather than restructure the thread I suggested you start a new one. You could have addressed all my criticism of your presentation if you'd just given the details in this thread. But you didn't. And now you're whining.
Will finish this with a question for AN. Place solid matter under uniaxial compressive stress (like energized disk pads do to a brake disk). Does or does not the passive gravitational mass of that matter so stressed increase, or not?
What's your definition of 'passive gravitational mass'. Algebraically.
And one really and truly needs to solve the EFE's to answer that question? If so, Strange then the authors of that article at I linked to in #1:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505040
didn't need to do so in very simply obtaining gravitational contributions from shell stresses. But what would they know.
You mean other than in Section 1 and Section 2 where they consider the field equations, the components of the metric, the relevant stress-energy terms and then manipulate them to reach their conclusions, which is precisely the sort of thing I was asking you to do? You mean other than that?
You had a bloody crib sheet, a paper which has all the formalism for you, laid out in pretty simple terms. You could have provided details without having to do any work and rather than doing so you complain and whine and imply there's possible action to scrub the threads from the forum.
Besides, do you know how to check whether or not energy and momentum are conserved? It's pretty direct and utterly avoids all the guff in your attempt to describe the scenario. But since I suspect you can't do any general relativity I suspect you don't.
And if this post gets instantly locked or made to disappear, so be it. Taking a precautionary 'snapshot' just in case.
I think that says everything about you. Why would I delete this thread? Do you think
I would do that because that's what your response would be if shown to be ignorant or incorrect? You'd do it to others so you expect it done to you? This thread and the previous one show you've got a chip on your shoulder about something, though I don't care what it is. You don't invoke fear in people, in the 'heavy hitters', just exasperation and a sense of weariness about yet
another person who cannot formalise their claims but believe they've got a critical flaw in some area of science.
