32
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 410:
Line 410: + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 19:49, August 2, 2010
, 19:49, August 2, 2010→Curl of the gravitaional field
::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field." Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative. In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: A conservative field conserves exactly one quantity -- its potential, and the existence of such a potential is the ''definition'' of a conservative field. Independent physical attributes might remain path-independent as well, but that's because they have their own conservative fields associated to them. For example, electric potential is also path-independent, but that's because it comes from the electric field, which is conservative because of Coulomb's law. Many other quantities (temperature, say) aren't path-independent when moving in a gravitational field, but that doesn't mean it's not a conservative field.
:::::::: Perhaps if you think my view here is too narrow, you could suggest the correct definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:49, 2 August 2010 (EDT)