Gravity is a property of mass - not a property of space !!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: I was wrong
Next: Prog to transform world lines?
From: mpc755 on 20 Jul 2010 20:11 On Jul 20, 7:06 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." Einstein might as well have been discussing dark matter. Dark matter is aether (with mass). The state of dark matter as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the dark matter in neighboring places is the dark matter's state of displacement. The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter. Evidence of dark matter displacement: '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." Where does the ripple end? It doesn't. Where does dark matter end? It doesn't. Where is space a void? It isn't. Where is space void of dark matter? Only where there is matter.
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jul 2010 21:05 On Jul 20, 4:21 pm, 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 + ....) ------------------- (:-) much simpler than you could imagine!! i dont build empty space by space!! NATURE did it by MASS IN IT !!! do i have to go one with that explanation?? BTW Ben did you ever agreed with me about anything?? or you opposing to me is sort of a reflex?? was there ever any case in which you said 'well done Porat' ??!! (:-) BTW i could ask for instance - PD that same question (:-) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: mpc755 on 20 Jul 2010 21:26 On Jul 20, 9:05 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:21 pm, 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 + ....) > > ------------------- > (:-) > > much simpler than you could imagine!! > > i dont build empty space by space!! > NATURE did it > by > MASS IN IT !!! > do i have to go one with that explanation?? > > BTW Ben > did you ever agreed with me > about anything?? > or you opposing to me is sort of a reflex?? > > was there ever any case in which you said > 'well done Porat' ??!! (:-) > > BTW > i could ask for instance - PD > that same question > (:-) > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------- How does the void of space ripple? '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 is the displacement of dark matter. When does the rippling stop? It doesn't. Where does the dark matter end? It doesn't. Where is space a void? It isn't. Where is space void of dark matter? Only where there is matter. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." Einstein might as well have been discussing dark matter. Dark matter is aether (with mass). The state of dark matter as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the dark matter in neighboring places is the dark matter's state of displacement. The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter. Dark matter displaced by matter is not at rest. Dark matter displaced by matter exerts pressure towards the matter. Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity.
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jul 2010 21:28 On Jul 20, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ------------------------------- PD you ddint not understand my way of proving it BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR TEXT BOKS i thought you are a bit more open minded and intelligent go back to my explanations just above or may be i am a poor ex plainer so i suggest read back my previous posts and may be YOU will be able (as usual ) to explain it better than me in general it is about zooming into the structure of matter untill the most possible basic one and inthat case testing what will be if that most basic matter was filling complately our space while not leaving any empty space !! 2 that tiny matter if not filling all space is weaker than the more massive degree of matter just above it in the hierarchy of matetr so while th e bigger mases in that hierarchy 'wants' to move the higher degree of mass is pushing aside th e lower hirearchy matter and it can do it only because that most nasic matter --- --IS NOT FILLING COMPLETELY ALL SPACE OR ELSE NO MOVEMENT COULD BE DONE !! yet i said it is simple but not trivial !!! so actually it is sort of a 'mathematical' logic prove !! (the stile you like- especially had done it before me (:-) are you unable psychologically or though personal tactics interests say 'well done Porat' ?? (:-) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: mpc755 on 20 Jul 2010 21:46
On Jul 20, 9:28 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------- > > PD > you ddint not understand my way of proving it > BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR TEXT BOKS > i thought you are a bit more open minded and intelligent > go back to my explanations just above > or may be i am a poor ex plainer > so i suggest > read back my previous posts > and may be YOU will be able (as usual ) to explain it > better than me > > in general it is about > zooming into the structure of matter > untill the most possible basic one > and inthat case > testing what will be if that > most basic matter was filling complately > our space while not leaving any empty space !! > 2 > that tiny matter if not filling all space > is weaker than the more massive degree of matter > just above it in the hierarchy of matetr > so > while th e bigger mases in that hierarchy > 'wants' to move > the higher degree of mass is pushing aside > th e lower hirearchy matter > > and it can do it only because that > most nasic matter --- > --IS NOT FILLING COMPLETELY ALL SPACE > OR ELSE NO MOVEMENT COULD BE DONE !! > > yet i said > it is simple > but not trivial !!! > > so actually it is sort of a 'mathematical' logic prove !! > (the stile you like- especially had done it before me (:-) > are you unable psychologically or though personal tactics interests > say > 'well done Porat' ?? (:-) > > ATB > 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_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 is the displacement of dark matter. When does the rippling stop? It doesn't. Where does the dark matter end? It doesn't. Where is space a void? It isn't. Where is space void of dark matter? Only where there is matter. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein' http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." Einstein might as well have been discussing dark matter. Dark matter is aether (with mass). The state of dark matter as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the dark matter in neighboring places is the dark matter's state of displacement. The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter. Dark matter displaced by matter is not at rest. Dark matter displaced by matter exerts pressure towards the matter. Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. |