Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430134 > unrolled thread

Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-27 09:34 +0000
    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-27 09:44 +0000
      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-27 22:09 +1000
        Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-27 15:20 +0000
          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-28 14:38 +1000
            Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-28 19:04 +0000
              Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-29 14:46 +1000
                Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-29 09:28 +0000
                  Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-29 22:07 +1000
                    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-29 16:36 +0000
                      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-30 10:18 +1000
                        Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-31 06:17 +0000
                          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-31 17:10 +1000
                          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 02:11 -0500
    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 15:12 -0700
      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-31 06:15 +0000
        Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 00:45 -0700
          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-31 08:29 +0000
            Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 12:29 -0700
              Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-02 11:37 +0000
                Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-03 11:21 +1000
                  Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-03 10:58 +0000
                Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:08 -0700
                  Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-03 10:58 +0000
                    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 05:16 -0700
                      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-04 22:47 +0000
                  Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-03 22:12 +0000
                    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 05:18 -0700
                      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 05:54 -0700
                        Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 12:19 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#430877

On 2/09/2017 9:37 PM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
>>>> No. What YOU wrote is pure gobbledygook. Sorry.
>>>
>>> aHmmm?? At your age you didn't find out that your curvature is nothen
>>> but a geometrical projection, a visual since you insist.
>>
>> Again, meaningless.
> 
> Woot?? My friend, you didn't passed the subject, seemingly. The visual is
> the best you can do Physics, then here, in Relativity, specifically the GR
> one. YOU CAN'T DO BETTER THAN the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a PROJECTION.
> Nobody can. You have much to learn, young man.
> 
>> Tidal force is acceleration of nearby particles per unit separation
>> distance.
> 
> Wow, I suspect an accl to force confusion already!!
> 
>> This acceleration is the second covariant derivative of the particles'
>> separation vector, where the derivative is taken in the direction of the
>> test particle's trajectory (geodesic) as long as the parametrisation of
>> the nearby geodesics satisfies certain orthogonality condition.
> 
> Not sure it has to do with "separations". Density yes, but you are
> ignoring the CRYSTAL STRUCTURE, which can be rigid(er), whereas your
> "separation vector" becomes totally obsolete, in fact wrong choice.
> 
>>      D_T( D_T(U) ) = R_{T,U} T
>> So in GR you can calculate tidal forces by evaluating the Riemann tensor
>> on certain vectors representing the body in question.
> 
> These symbols explain no _action at distance_, much less Forces, then it
> doesn't impress anybody. Better luck next time.
> 

It's apparent that you have some kind of delusion of superiority, even 
though it's also apparent that you actually have next to no 
understanding of the subject at hand.

I doubt that it's possible to explain this to you, even in principle, 
because your delusion will prevent it.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430904

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> These symbols explain no _action at distance_, much less Forces, then
>> it doesn't impress anybody. Better luck next time.
>> 
>> 
> It's apparent that you have some kind of delusion of superiority, even
> though it's also apparent that you actually have next to no
> understanding of the subject at hand. I doubt that it's possible to
> explain this to you, even in principle, because your delusion will
> prevent it. Sylvia.

This appears to be your private opinion, mamm. Doesn't add, nor subtracts, 
to anything. Arrogant like hell, not to neglect. Keep your privacy 
private, from now on. Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430887

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:37:14 AM UTC-7, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> > No. What YOU wrote is pure gobbledygook. Sorry.
> >> 
> >> aHmmm?? At your age you didn't find out that your curvature is nothen
> >> but a geometrical projection, a visual since you insist.
> > 
> > Again, meaningless.
> 
> Woot?? My friend, you didn't passed the subject, seemingly. The visual is 
> the best you can do Physics, then here, in Relativity, specifically the GR 
> one. YOU CAN'T DO BETTER THAN the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a PROJECTION. 
> Nobody can. You have much to learn, young man.

You still make no sense:
"The visual is the best you can do Physics"
"the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a PROJECTION".

> > Tidal force is acceleration of nearby particles per unit separation
> > distance.
> 
> Wow, I suspect an accl to force confusion already!!

No confusion, just first things first. Once you have the free-fall accelerations, you can
try to determine the forces using the constitutive equations for whatever substance
you are working with. This part is not easy, BTW. 

> > This acceleration is the second covariant derivative of the particles'
> > separation vector, where the derivative is taken in the direction of the
> > test particle's trajectory (geodesic) as long as the parametrisation of
> > the nearby geodesics satisfies certain orthogonality condition.
> 
> Not sure it has to do with "separations".

Imagine a dust of particles surrounding your test particle and measure the rate
of change of separation speeds in various directions of interest, in the limit of small
separations. This is the tidal acceleration.

> Density yes, but you are 
> ignoring the CRYSTAL STRUCTURE, which can be rigid(er), whereas your 
> "separation vector" becomes totally obsolete, in fact wrong choice.

Again you are using your private terminology here, I cannot possibly guess what you
mean when you say things like "ignoring the CRYSTAL STRUCTURE". The separation
vector obvously cannot be "obsolete" because acceleration is defined in terms of
distance in general, and then you can figure out the force from it.

> >     D_T( D_T(U) ) = R_{T,U} T
> > So in GR you can calculate tidal forces by evaluating the Riemann tensor
> > on certain vectors representing the body in question.
> 
> These symbols explain no _action at distance_, much less Forces, then it 
> doesn't impress anybody. Better luck next time.

WHAT "action at a distance"?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430905

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:37:14 AM UTC-7, Bídníkùm Laterá
> wrote:
>> Woot?? My friend, you didn't passed the subject, seemingly. The visual
>> is the best you can do Physics, then here, in Relativity, specifically
>> the GR one. YOU CAN'T DO BETTER THAN the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a
>> PROJECTION.
>> Nobody can. You have much to learn, young man.
> 
> You still make no sense:
> "The visual is the best you can do Physics"
> "the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a PROJECTION".

Nonsense, fill in the blanks, the understanding which is important. You'll 
never get a teaching position at a famous university with an argument like 
yours. A missing "is" and "a" here and there, is nothing.

> No confusion, just first things first. Once you have the free-fall
> accelerations, you can try to determine the forces using the
> constitutive equations for whatever substance you are working with. This
> part is not easy, BTW.

I believe the state of the matter invalidates the above approach. Ie, in 
liquids the particles sits closer to each other, when compared to certain 
solids.

> Imagine a dust of particles surrounding your test particle and measure
> the rate of change of separation speeds in various directions of
> interest, in the limit of small separations. This is the tidal
> acceleration.

No, I can't imagine such that. Read above.

>> Density yes, but you are ignoring the CRYSTAL STRUCTURE, which can be
>> rigid(er), whereas your "separation vector" becomes totally obsolete,
>> in fact wrong choice.
> 
> Again you are using your private terminology here, I cannot possibly
> guess what you mean when you say things like "ignoring the CRYSTAL
> STRUCTURE".

As seemingly displaying being unqualified talking about the subject. All 
materials in the world, especially the solids, are DESCRIBED by their 
CRYSTAL STRUCTURE, hence various Strain and resistance to stress. Where 
have you been??

> The separation vector obvously cannot be "obsolete" because
> acceleration is defined in terms of distance in general, and then you
> can figure out the force from it.

There is no acceleration in RIGID materials, my friend.
 
> WHAT "action at a distance"?

!! Good post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#431020

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 3:59:10 AM UTC-7, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 4:37:14 AM UTC-7, Bídníkùm Laterá
> > wrote:
> >> Woot?? My friend, you didn't passed the subject, seemingly. The visual
> >> is the best you can do Physics, then here, in Relativity, specifically
> >> the GR one. YOU CAN'T DO BETTER THAN the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a
> >> PROJECTION.
> >> Nobody can. You have much to learn, young man.
> > 
> > You still make no sense:
> > "The visual is the best you can do Physics"
> > "the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a PROJECTION".
> 
> Nonsense, fill in the blanks, the understanding which is important. You'll 
> never get a teaching position at a famous university with an argument like 
> yours. A missing "is" and "a" here and there, is nothing.

The phrase:
> > "The visual is the best you can do Physics"
> > "the VISUAL, which IS geodesic, a PROJECTION".

...is gobbledygook.

> > No confusion, just first things first. Once you have the free-fall
> > accelerations, you can try to determine the forces using the
> > constitutive equations for whatever substance you are working with. This
> > part is not easy, BTW.
> 
> I believe the state of the matter invalidates the above approach. Ie, in 
> liquids the particles sits closer to each other, when compared to certain 
> solids.

Again, you make no sense. The properties of the substance imply how
the substance will react to the tidal accelerations shown by measuring
how dust behaves in the given gravitational field.

> > Imagine a dust of particles surrounding your test particle and measure
> > the rate of change of separation speeds in various directions of
> > interest, in the limit of small separations. This is the tidal
> > acceleration.
> 
> No, I can't imagine such that. Read above.

Please study a GR textbook. It's not sensible to continue at this point.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#431105

JanPB wrote:

>> I believe the state of the matter invalidates the above approach. Ie,
>> in liquids the particles sits closer to each other, when compared to
>> certain solids.
> 
> Again, you make no sense. The properties of the substance imply how the
> substance will react to the tidal accelerations shown by measuring how
> dust behaves in the given gravitational field.

That person of Bidnikum makes perfectly sense. You don't have much 
laboratory experience not knowing what acceleration is. Neither Crystal 
Structure of Materials. Here is the catch, investigate the Acceleration 
Profile of an item you may find appropriate, then you'll never go wrong 
with Accl right after that.

Moreover, a rigid crystal structure allows not much acceleration in it, no 
matter how much you try. However, it WILL DO spaghettifize or pankifize 
due to curvature near a black hole. Here is exactly where you are getting 
wrong. The "tidal behavioural" is SOMETHING ELSE! And I just gave the 
proof.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#430971

JanPB wrote:

>> >     D_T( D_T(U) ) = R_{T,U} T
>> > So in GR you can calculate tidal forces by evaluating the Riemann
>> > tensor on certain vectors representing the body in question.
>> 
>> These symbols explain no _action at distance_, much less Forces, then
>> it doesn't impress anybody. Better luck next time.
> 
> WHAT "action at a distance"?

I believe I can see your point. It implies that the curvature has to be 
more than a "geometrical projection". Super-positioned here by the Moon 
and the Earth's curvature. And if this is the case, than the curvature is 
MUCH more than simply geodesics and geometrical projection. It gets ways 
too complex pretty fast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#431021

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 3:12:41 PM UTC-7, Ethel Ocallaghan wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >     D_T( D_T(U) ) = R_{T,U} T
> >> > So in GR you can calculate tidal forces by evaluating the Riemann
> >> > tensor on certain vectors representing the body in question.
> >> 
> >> These symbols explain no _action at distance_, much less Forces, then
> >> it doesn't impress anybody. Better luck next time.
> > 
> > WHAT "action at a distance"?
> 
> I believe I can see your point. It implies that the curvature has to be 
> more than a "geometrical projection". Super-positioned here by the Moon 
> and the Earth's curvature. And if this is the case, than the curvature is 
> MUCH more than simply geodesics and geometrical projection. It gets ways 
> too complex pretty fast.

Curvature (the Riemann tensor) is completely described by behaviour of
freely falling (dust) particles.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#431026

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 14:18:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 3:12:41 PM UTC-7, Ethel Ocallaghan wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > 
> > >> >     D_T( D_T(U) ) = R_{T,U} T
> > >> > So in GR you can calculate tidal forces by evaluating the Riemann
> > >> > tensor on certain vectors representing the body in question.
> > >> 
> > >> These symbols explain no _action at distance_, much less Forces, then
> > >> it doesn't impress anybody. Better luck next time.
> > > 
> > > WHAT "action at a distance"?
> > 
> > I believe I can see your point. It implies that the curvature has to be 
> > more than a "geometrical projection". Super-positioned here by the Moon 
> > and the Earth's curvature. And if this is the case, than the curvature is 
> > MUCH more than simply geodesics and geometrical projection. It gets ways 
> > too complex pretty fast.
> 
> Curvature (the Riemann tensor) is completely described by behaviour of
> freely falling (dust) particles.

All you have to do, Ethel - is to measure them.
Too bad Jan (or any of his fellow idiots) won't tell
you how to do it:(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#431159

mlwozniak wrote:

>> > I believe I can see your point. It implies that the curvature has to
>> > be more than a "geometrical projection". Super-positioned here by the
>> > Moon and the Earth's curvature. And if this is the case, than the
>> > curvature is MUCH more than simply geodesics and geometrical
>> > projection. It gets ways too complex pretty fast.
>> 
>> Curvature (the Riemann tensor) is completely described by behaviour of
>> freely falling (dust) particles.
> 
> All you have to do, Ethel - is to measure them.
> Too bad Jan (or any of his fellow idiots) won't tell you how to do it

You don't speech engilsh.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web