Gravity is a property of mass - not a property of space !!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: I was wrong
Next: Prog to transform world lines?
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jul 2010 10:20 On Jul 20, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 5:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 4:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > you have to undertsnad that > > > > > completely empty space is **much bigger in volume than > > > > > occupies space !! > > > > > and that empty space includes in it > > > > > NOTHING > > > > > no porperties at all!! > > > > > Sorry, Porat, but this last statement here is observationally wrong.. > > > > You seem to want to insist that this MUST be true, by declaration or > > > > definition. > > > > As I told you, we do not get to make those kinds of declarations. > > > > ------------------- > > > you made a declaration that > > > 'we do not make that kind of declarations (:-) > > > now tel me genius physicist > > > > did you understand at last > > > waht even the psychopath Artful understood > > > that space is empty by definition > > > and if not bydefinition > > > i gave you a 'mathematical ' > > > unequivocal prove that > > > THERE MUST BE CO,PLETLY EMPTY SPACE! > > > OR ELSE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MOTION IN OUR UNIVERSE !! > > > > And indeed it is not written in you parrots books > > > but the new prove is a new prove > > > anyway > > > if space is completlt empty at least inplaces it is not occupied by > > > mass > > > than ?? > > > WHAT MAKES THAT *EMPTY SPACE* > > > (THAT HAS NOTHING IN IT) > > > AS WELL NON OF ANY PHYSICAL TOOLS THAT YOU CAN PROVE > > > > TO CURVE THE MOVEMENT OF MASS > > > IN ONE CASE > > > AND NOT CURVE IT IN ANOTHER CASE > > > > WHICH ARE EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED !!! > > > 2 > > > how can you prove OR DETECT any property of space > > > WHILE THERE IS NO MASS IN IT ??!!! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------- > > > If space is a void then what ripples? > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > water." > > > The ripple is a gravity wave. > > The ripple is displaced dark matter. > > > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced. > > Dark matter displaced by matter exerts pressure towards the matter. > > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > If space is a void then what ripples and where does the ripple end? > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > water." > > The ripple requires a medium. The medium requires material. The > material requires mass. > > The ripples does not end. Three dimensional space has mass. ---------------- while space is empty there is no ripples and no schmipples !! if you discover any PHYSICAL property in space it is not by empty space it is in space **that host mass !** so better look for those properties in MASS PROPERTIES !!! ATB Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: ben6993 on 20 Jul 2010 10:21 On Jul 20, 10:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 4:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 15, 11:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > you have to undertsnad that > > > completely empty space is **much bigger in volume than > > > occupies space !! > > > and that empty space includes in it > > > NOTHING > > > no porperties at all!! > > > Sorry, Porat, but this last statement here is observationally wrong. > > You seem to want to insist that this MUST be true, by declaration or > > definition. > > As I told you, we do not get to make those kinds of declarations. > > ------------------- > you made a declaration that > 'we do not make that kind of declarations (:-) > now tel me genius physicist > > did you understand at last > waht even the psychopath Artful understood > that space is empty by definition > and if not bydefinition > i gave you a 'mathematical ' > unequivocal prove that > THERE MUST BE CO,PLETLY EMPTY SPACE! > OR ELSE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MOTION IN OUR UNIVERSE !! > > And indeed it is not written in you parrots books > but the new prove is a new prove > anyway > if space is completlt empty at least inplaces it is not occupied by > mass > than ?? > WHAT MAKES THAT *EMPTY SPACE* > (THAT HAS NOTHING IN IT) > AS WELL NON OF ANY PHYSICAL TOOLS THAT YOU CAN PROVE > > TO CURVE THE MOVEMENT OF MASS > IN ONE CASE > AND NOT CURVE IT IN ANOTHER CASE > > WHICH ARE EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED !!! > 2 > how can you prove OR DETECT any property of space > WHILE THERE IS NO MASS IN IT ??!!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------- Hi Porat How do you build up a volume of nothingness from scratch? You start with nothing, then add nothing to it. Then you continue adding nothing as many times as you like. (You will like this easy arithmetic: 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + .... ) How does this aggregate of nothingness come to have a finite volume? Doesn't this imply that any finite volume is something, rather than nothing? Of course you could start with a finite volume of something (=x), then you can add nothing to it as often as you like and it is unchanged. But it is still a finite volume of something, not of nothing. (x = x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ....)
From: mpc755 on 20 Jul 2010 10:38 On Jul 20, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 8:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 5:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 16, 4:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > you have to undertsnad that > > > > > > completely empty space is **much bigger in volume than > > > > > > occupies space !! > > > > > > and that empty space includes in it > > > > > > NOTHING > > > > > > no porperties at all!! > > > > > > Sorry, Porat, but this last statement here is observationally wrong. > > > > > You seem to want to insist that this MUST be true, by declaration or > > > > > definition. > > > > > As I told you, we do not get to make those kinds of declarations. > > > > > ------------------- > > > > you made a declaration that > > > > 'we do not make that kind of declarations (:-) > > > > now tel me genius physicist > > > > > did you understand at last > > > > waht even the psychopath Artful understood > > > > that space is empty by definition > > > > and if not bydefinition > > > > i gave you a 'mathematical ' > > > > unequivocal prove that > > > > THERE MUST BE CO,PLETLY EMPTY SPACE! > > > > OR ELSE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MOTION IN OUR UNIVERSE !! > > > > > And indeed it is not written in you parrots books > > > > but the new prove is a new prove > > > > anyway > > > > if space is completlt empty at least inplaces it is not occupied by > > > > mass > > > > than ?? > > > > WHAT MAKES THAT *EMPTY SPACE* > > > > (THAT HAS NOTHING IN IT) > > > > AS WELL NON OF ANY PHYSICAL TOOLS THAT YOU CAN PROVE > > > > > TO CURVE THE MOVEMENT OF MASS > > > > IN ONE CASE > > > > AND NOT CURVE IT IN ANOTHER CASE > > > > > WHICH ARE EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED !!! > > > > 2 > > > > how can you prove OR DETECT any property of space > > > > WHILE THERE IS NO MASS IN IT ??!!! > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > If space is a void then what ripples? > > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > > water." > > > > The ripple is a gravity wave. > > > The ripple is displaced dark matter. > > > > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced. > > > Dark matter displaced by matter exerts pressure towards the matter. > > > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > > If space is a void then what ripples and where does the ripple end? > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > water." > > > The ripple requires a medium. The medium requires material. The > > material requires mass. > > > The ripples does not end. Three dimensional space has mass. > > ---------------- > while space is empty > there is no ripples and no schmipples !! If there are no ripples then what is occurring here: 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water." The ripple requires a medium. The medium requires material. The material requires mass. The ripples does not end. Three dimensional space has mass.
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 10:56 On Jul 20, 4:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 4:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 15, 11:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > you have to undertsnad that > > > completely empty space is **much bigger in volume than > > > occupies space !! > > > and that empty space includes in it > > > NOTHING > > > no porperties at all!! > > > Sorry, Porat, but this last statement here is observationally wrong. > > You seem to want to insist that this MUST be true, by declaration or > > definition. > > As I told you, we do not get to make those kinds of declarations. > > ------------------- > you made a declaration that > 'we do not make that kind of declarations (:-) > now tel me genius physicist > > did you understand at last > waht even the psychopath Artful understood > that space is empty by definition No, it is not. > and if not bydefinition > i gave you a 'mathematical ' > unequivocal prove that > THERE MUST BE CO,PLETLY EMPTY SPACE! > OR ELSE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MOTION IN OUR UNIVERSE !! So rocks cannot sink in water because there is matter in the way? > > And indeed it is not written in you parrots books > but the new prove is a new prove > anyway > if space is completlt empty at least inplaces it is not occupied by > mass > than ?? > WHAT MAKES THAT *EMPTY SPACE* > (THAT HAS NOTHING IN IT) > AS WELL NON OF ANY PHYSICAL TOOLS THAT YOU CAN PROVE > > TO CURVE THE MOVEMENT OF MASS > IN ONE CASE > AND NOT CURVE IT IN ANOTHER CASE > > WHICH ARE EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED !!! > 2 > how can you prove OR DETECT any property of space > WHILE THERE IS NO MASS IN IT ??!!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------------
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 19:06
On Jul 21, 12:21 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 4:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 15, 11:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > you have to undertsnad that > > > > completely empty space is **much bigger in volume than > > > > occupies space !! > > > > and that empty space includes in it > > > > NOTHING > > > > no porperties at all!! > > > > Sorry, Porat, but this last statement here is observationally wrong. > > > You seem to want to insist that this MUST be true, by declaration or > > > definition. > > > As I told you, we do not get to make those kinds of declarations. > > > ------------------- > > you made a declaration that > > 'we do not make that kind of declarations (:-) > > now tel me genius physicist > > > did you understand at last > > waht even the psychopath Artful understood > > that space is empty by definition > > and if not bydefinition > > i gave you a 'mathematical ' > > unequivocal prove that > > THERE MUST BE CO,PLETLY EMPTY SPACE! > > OR ELSE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MOTION IN OUR UNIVERSE !! > > > And indeed it is not written in you parrots books > > but the new prove is a new prove > > anyway > > if space is completlt empty at least inplaces it is not occupied by > > mass > > than ?? > > WHAT MAKES THAT *EMPTY SPACE* > > (THAT HAS NOTHING IN IT) > > AS WELL NON OF ANY PHYSICAL TOOLS THAT YOU CAN PROVE > > > TO CURVE THE MOVEMENT OF MASS > > IN ONE CASE > > AND NOT CURVE IT IN ANOTHER CASE > > > WHICH ARE EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED !!! > > 2 > > how can you prove OR DETECT any property of space > > WHILE THERE IS NO MASS IN IT ??!!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------- > > Hi Porat > > How do you build up a volume of nothingness from scratch? > > You start with nothing, then add nothing to it. > Then you continue adding nothing as many times as you like. > (You will like this easy arithmetic: 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 > + .... ) > How does this aggregate of nothingness come to have a finite volume? > > Doesn't this imply that any finite volume is something, rather than > nothing? > > Of course you could start with a finite volume of something (=x), > then you can add nothing to it as often as you like and it is > unchanged. > But it is still a finite volume of something, not of nothing. > (x = x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ....) Indeed .. what is it that makes empty space 3 dimensional (ignoring time and relativity for the moment, and the weirdness of things like string theory for the time being)? Surely an absolute void has no dimensions .. it should be able to host objects of any number of dimensions and objects should be able to move in any of a possibly infinite number of dimensions. But empty space, it appears, has an exactly-three dimensional structure. That implies to me that it is not just absolutely nothing. Of course, SR/GR says that the structure is actually what we describe as 4 dimensional (3 spatial and 1 temporal - Minkowski) .. and the same argument above applies .. if space were just absolute nothingness .. how could it have such a structure? |