Gravity is a property of mass - not a property of space !! [Physics]

Prev: number of Coulomb Interactions as 231! as the largest number in physics Chapt 19 #222 Atom Totality
Next: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas

From: PD on 14 Jul 2010 11:13

On Jul 14, 9:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 10:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 13, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 13, 12:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 13, 2:38 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 12, 7:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 4:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Gravity is a property of mass!!
> > > > > > > > > it is *not* a property of space!
>
> > > > > > > > Gravity is not a property. It is an interaction. It involves matter's
> > > > > > > > and energy's interaction with spacetime, and spacetime's interaction
> > > > > > > > with matter and energy.
>
> > > > > > > > > now of curved space time or other nonsense physic s alike !!
> > > > > > > > > peoplehave lost too muchtime on that nonsense
> > > > > > > > > curved space time
> > > > > > > > > gravity should be loked in some basic mass particle
> > > > > > > > > emitted from big masses
> > > > > > > > > he Circlon'' might be a good start !!
> > > > > > > > > the Circlon is a basic particle
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > 'moves naturally in curved or circular paths
> > > > > > > > > naturallt mease it is a premise
> > > > > > > > > ie
> > > > > > > > > it does not move in a curved pass
> > > > > > > > > because 'some forces make it move like that but =
> > > > > > > > > but it moves in a curved path
> > > > > > > > > 'because it was 'born' like that
> > > > > > > > > and is actually the cause of all atractin froces
> > > > > > > > > iow
> > > > > > > > > it is a premis
> > > > > > > > > exactly as 'curved space trime is another *premis*
>
> > > > > > > > > the photon cannot be an attraction agent
> > > > > > > > > because it moves in a **straight lines**
> > > > > > > > > and if so to be an attraction agent is against the
> > > > > > > > > conservation of Momentum principle
> > > > > > > > > (the momentum has direction ...!!)
> > > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > another nonsense attraction particle are the W or Z
>
> > > > > > > > > AN ATTRACTION AGENT CANNOT BE BIGGER THAN ITS MOTHER
> > > > > > > > > PARTICLE !!!
> > > > > > > > > etc etc etc nonsense physics that 'modern physics''
> > > > > > > > > is filled with
> > > > > > > > > without any one eating it without blinking an eye!!
> > > > > > > > > (mainly fucken mathematicians
> > > > > > > > > that lead us toi a dead end position !!!)
>
> > > > > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------
>
> > > > > > > Bravo
> > > > > > > you make some advance
> > > > > > > even if inspired by me (:-)
>
> > > > > > There is no recent advance here. I've just told you what's been
> > > > > > understood since 1915, and which you would be able to find for
> > > > > > yourself just by reading a book.
>
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > i have a little question for you PD
>
> > > > > > > if you say 'an interaction'
> > > > > > > so it is an interaction between
> > > > > > > two physical entities
>
> > > > > > Yes, between matter and spacetime.
>
> > > > > > > yet i order to understand that INTERACTION between those 2
> > > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > we have to know to scratch
> > > > > > > the properties of those two actors
> > > > > > > am i right ???
> > > > > > > if so
> > > > > > > whqt are the properties of that
> > > > > > > mysterious space that can
> > > > > > > curve a motion that would otherwise
> > > > > > > move in a straight line
>
> > > > > > I've already listed properties in another post for you. Did you read
> > > > > > that?
>
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > for example
> > > > > > > out earth moved in a circle around the sun
> > > > > > > and all that happens in space
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > **if that sun was not there**
> > > > > > > our earth move in a strigfgt line isn t that so ??
> > > > > > > so ???
> > > > > > > what made our earth to move i a circle
> > > > > > > is it space ???
> > > > > > > or is it the -
> > > > > > > sun
> > > > > > > and earths masses ??
>
> > > > > > The sun affects the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of the
> > > > > > Earth (and everywhere else), and the Earth responds to the curvature
> > > > > > of spacetime where it is at. The same is true vice-versa.
>
> > > > > The sun displaces dark matter and the Earth responds to the
> > > > > displacement of dark matter where it is at.
>
> > > > Well, YOU say the sun displaces dark matter. Physicists are probably
> > > > talking about something different than what you're talking about then.
>
> > > You can not explain how spacetime curves but does not move because you
> > > have no idea what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > Well, you can say it's because of that, but your mistaken about that
> > "because" as much as you are about the others.
> > I DO NOT (not "can not") explain to you how spacetime curves but does
> > not move, because you are an insufferable jerk with severe emotional
> > problems.
>
> You do not, because you can not, explain how spactime curves but does
> not move because the statement 'spacetime curves' has nothing to do
> with the physics of nature.
>
> Dark matter is displaced by matter.
>
>
>
> > Now, I'd be happy to have you assert that my motivations are not at
> > all what I think my motivations are, and that you have the unique, God-
> > blessed insight to see my motivations better than I do. This will
> > firmly establish your mental slide, and you will have the opportunity
> > to prepare for the day your company lets you go as a liability.
>

So, thank you for firmly establishing your mental slide, and
embellishing it with your compulsive response pattern of cut-and-paste
repetition.

PD

From: Y.Porat on 14 Jul 2010 11:16

On Jul 14, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 6:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 8:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 1:44 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> > > >news:13f4440e-066c-4da6-a73e-4c001ae398b8(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > 2
> > > > > if we have just one mass in space
> > > > > what is its interaction with space ??
>
> > > > It curves spacetime
>
> > > > > 3
> > > > > if we have only two masses in space
> > > > > but the distance between the two mass
> > > > > --is a very very big big distance
> > > > > (between those two masses)
> > > > > what is the **interaction**
> > > > > (inter **....). action)
> > > > > between
> > > > > those two mass --->-
> > > > > ------>****AND SPACE ** ??!!
>
> > > > Both curve spacetime, that curvature causes them to move toward each other
> > > > (what we call gravity). At a "very very big big distance" it would be a
> > > > very very small small acceleration.
>
> > > What physically occurs in nature to cause the curvature of
> > > 'spacetime'?
>
> > > You are misinterpreting the displacement of dark matter by matter as
> > > the curvature of 'spacetime'?
>
> > --------------
> > dark matter or not dark matter
>
> > NOTHING IS CURVING SPACE
> > BECAUSE SPACE IS NOTHING
>
> Sorry, but we do not get to define what space is and make bald
> declarations like that.
> We can recognize space and then INVESTIGATE what it is and what
> properties it has, but we don't make bald assertions that it IS
> nothing and therefore CANNOT have properties.
>
> > AND IF NOT MASS IN IT
> > ID DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROPERTIES
> > EXCEPT HOSTING MASS
> > WHILE MASS IS THE REAL HERO OF GRAVITY !!
>
> > 2
> > we heard just above form the genius PD
> > that space has EM waves
> > if it was not funny it is sad
> > how idiotic 'scientists can be:
>
> > he himself admitted that EM radiation has if not mass
> > at least 'relativistic mass'
> > so according to that genius PD
> > vacuum has .... (AS VACUUM !!!!!)...
> > ----""relativistic mass""!!.....
> > did you get how far
> > insane personal hatred can lead
> > someone who calls himself a physicist
> > (may be even a teacher of physics !!!)
>
> > Y.Porat
> > ----------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

-----------------
MR PD

you can believe it or not
but i feel very bad on being rude with you
yet sometimes you 'drive me out of my mind'
by fantasic nonsense hand wavings
like:
i asked you in anothe thread
(what can er reject in 21 century or alike)
so i asked you waht are the proeprties of space??
(you cant deal with a physical entity
without defining it reasonable by indicating waht are its properties
or waht are not itsproperties:
i asked what are according to you the
properties of space so

so here is a quote from your answer :
quote:

Quite a few.
- curvature
- impedance
- permittivity
- permeability
- electric field
- magnetic field
- gravitational field
Quite a few others too...
end of quote ::

i must say that while seing it i remained stunned and open
mouthed ...

please note what you said
space has
(among the other nonsense )

it has electric field
gravitatioanl field (field as one not as many !!!)
and magnetic fields
so

Mr PD i was asking about the **net space!**
i was not asking about the 'visitors' there
as if i would ask
what are the properties of that room as an empty room
and you wi ltell me
there are tables chairs computers etc etc !!

take even your answer which you said:
electric fields
or magnetic fields
are those fields part of the empty space ??

are there not places in that space in which
THERE ***ARE NOT *** ELECTRIC OR MAGNETIC FIELDS ??!!

ARE THERE NOT LOCATIONS IN WHICH
THERE IS NO MASS AT ALL ??
even not 'relativistic mass '' (:-)
2

and to my question about two mass in space
that are very far away
you said
even so 'each of them curves space!!!'
if a single mass curves space
why does it move in a strait line ??!!

can you prove that a single mass moves in space in a curved
line ???

Y.Porat
--------------------------

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 11:20

On Jul 14, 11:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 9:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 10:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 13, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 13, 12:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 13, 2:38 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 7:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 4:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Gravity is a property of mass!!
> > > > > > > > > > it is *not* a property of space!
>
> > > > > > > > > Gravity is not a property. It is an interaction. It involves matter's
> > > > > > > > > and energy's interaction with spacetime, and spacetime's interaction
> > > > > > > > > with matter and energy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > now of curved space time or other nonsense physic s alike !!
> > > > > > > > > > peoplehave lost too muchtime on that nonsense
> > > > > > > > > > curved space time
> > > > > > > > > > gravity should be loked in some basic mass particle
> > > > > > > > > > emitted from big masses
> > > > > > > > > > he Circlon'' might be a good start !!
> > > > > > > > > > the Circlon is a basic particle
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > 'moves naturally in curved or circular paths
> > > > > > > > > > naturallt mease it is a premise
> > > > > > > > > > ie
> > > > > > > > > > it does not move in a curved pass
> > > > > > > > > > because 'some forces make it move like that but =
> > > > > > > > > > but it moves in a curved path
> > > > > > > > > > 'because it was 'born' like that
> > > > > > > > > > and is actually the cause of all atractin froces
> > > > > > > > > > iow
> > > > > > > > > > it is a premis
> > > > > > > > > > exactly as 'curved space trime is another *premis*
>
> > > > > > > > > > the photon cannot be an attraction agent
> > > > > > > > > > because it moves in a **straight lines**
> > > > > > > > > > and if so to be an attraction agent is against the
> > > > > > > > > > conservation of Momentum principle
> > > > > > > > > > (the momentum has direction ...!!)
> > > > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > > another nonsense attraction particle are the W or Z
>
> > > > > > > > > > AN ATTRACTION AGENT CANNOT BE BIGGER THAN ITS MOTHER
> > > > > > > > > > PARTICLE !!!
> > > > > > > > > > etc etc etc nonsense physics that 'modern physics''
> > > > > > > > > > is filled with
> > > > > > > > > > without any one eating it without blinking an eye!!
> > > > > > > > > > (mainly fucken mathematicians
> > > > > > > > > > that lead us toi a dead end position !!!)
>
> > > > > > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------
>
> > > > > > > > Bravo
> > > > > > > > you make some advance
> > > > > > > > even if inspired by me (:-)
>
> > > > > > > There is no recent advance here. I've just told you what's been
> > > > > > > understood since 1915, and which you would be able to find for
> > > > > > > yourself just by reading a book.
>
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > i have a little question for you PD
>
> > > > > > > > if you say 'an interaction'
> > > > > > > > so it is an interaction between
> > > > > > > > two physical entities
>
> > > > > > > Yes, between matter and spacetime.
>
> > > > > > > > yet i order to understand that INTERACTION between those 2
> > > > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > > we have to know to scratch
> > > > > > > > the properties of those two actors
> > > > > > > > am i right ???
> > > > > > > > if so
> > > > > > > > whqt are the properties of that
> > > > > > > > mysterious space that can
> > > > > > > > curve a motion that would otherwise
> > > > > > > > move in a straight line
>
> > > > > > > I've already listed properties in another post for you. Did you read
> > > > > > > that?
>
> > > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > for example
> > > > > > > > out earth moved in a circle around the sun
> > > > > > > > and all that happens in space
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > **if that sun was not there**
> > > > > > > > our earth move in a strigfgt line isn t that so ??
> > > > > > > > so ???
> > > > > > > > what made our earth to move i a circle
> > > > > > > > is it space ???
> > > > > > > > or is it the -
> > > > > > > > sun
> > > > > > > > and earths masses ??
>
> > > > > > > The sun affects the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of the
> > > > > > > Earth (and everywhere else), and the Earth responds to the curvature
> > > > > > > of spacetime where it is at. The same is true vice-versa.
>
> > > > > > The sun displaces dark matter and the Earth responds to the
> > > > > > displacement of dark matter where it is at.
>
> > > > > Well, YOU say the sun displaces dark matter. Physicists are probably
> > > > > talking about something different than what you're talking about then.
>
> > > > You can not explain how spacetime curves but does not move because you
> > > > have no idea what occurs physically in nature.
>
> > > Well, you can say it's because of that, but your mistaken about that
> > > "because" as much as you are about the others.
> > > I DO NOT (not "can not") explain to you how spacetime curves but does
> > > not move, because you are an insufferable jerk with severe emotional
> > > problems.
>
> > You do not, because you can not, explain how spactime curves but does
> > not move because the statement 'spacetime curves' has nothing to do
> > with the physics of nature.
>
> > Dark matter is displaced by matter.
>
> > > Now, I'd be happy to have you assert that my motivations are not at
> > > all what I think my motivations are, and that you have the unique, God-
> > > blessed insight to see my motivations better than I do. This will
> > > firmly establish your mental slide, and you will have the opportunity
> > > to prepare for the day your company lets you go as a liability.
>
> So, thank you for firmly establishing your mental slide, and
> embellishing it with your compulsive response pattern of cut-and-paste
> repetition.
>
> PD

It is evident you are unable to explain what occurs physically in
nature to cause spacetime to curve.

Dark matter is displaced by matter.

From: PD on 14 Jul 2010 11:41

On Jul 14, 10:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 6:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 8:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 1:44 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:13f4440e-066c-4da6-a73e-4c001ae398b8(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups..com...
>
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > if we have just one mass in space
> > > > > > what is its interaction with space ??
>
> > > > > It curves spacetime
>
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > > if we have only two masses in space
> > > > > > but the distance between the two mass
> > > > > > --is a very very big big distance
> > > > > > (between those two masses)
> > > > > > what is the **interaction**
> > > > > > (inter **....). action)
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > those two mass --->-
> > > > > > ------>****AND SPACE ** ??!!
>
> > > > > Both curve spacetime, that curvature causes them to move toward each other
> > > > > (what we call gravity). At a "very very big big distance" it would be a
> > > > > very very small small acceleration.
>
> > > > What physically occurs in nature to cause the curvature of
> > > > 'spacetime'?
>
> > > > You are misinterpreting the displacement of dark matter by matter as
> > > > the curvature of 'spacetime'?
>
> > > --------------
> > > dark matter or not dark matter
>
> > > NOTHING IS CURVING SPACE
> > > BECAUSE SPACE IS NOTHING
>
> > Sorry, but we do not get to define what space is and make bald
> > declarations like that.
> > We can recognize space and then INVESTIGATE what it is and what
> > properties it has, but we don't make bald assertions that it IS
> > nothing and therefore CANNOT have properties.
>
> > > AND IF NOT MASS IN IT
> > > ID DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROPERTIES
> > > EXCEPT HOSTING MASS
> > > WHILE MASS IS THE REAL HERO OF GRAVITY !!
>
> > > 2
> > > we heard just above form the genius PD
> > > that space has EM waves
> > > if it was not funny it is sad
> > > how idiotic 'scientists can be:
>
> > > he himself admitted that EM radiation has if not mass
> > > at least 'relativistic mass'
> > > so according to that genius PD
> > > vacuum has .... (AS VACUUM !!!!!)...
> > > ----""relativistic mass""!!.....
> > > did you get how far
> > > insane personal hatred can lead
> > > someone who calls himself a physicist
> > > (may be even a teacher of physics !!!)
>
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ----------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> -----------------
> MR PD
>
> you can believe it or not
> but i feel very bad on being rude with you
> yet sometimes you 'drive me out of my mind'
> by fantasic nonsense hand wavings
> like:
> i asked you in anothe thread
> (what can er reject in 21 century or alike)
> so i asked you waht are the proeprties of space??
> (you cant deal with a physical entity
> without defining it reasonable by indicating waht are its properties
> or waht are not itsproperties:
> i asked what are according to you the
> properties of space so
>
> so here is a quote from your answer :
> quote:
>
> Quite a few.
> - curvature
> - impedance
> - permittivity
> - permeability
> - electric field
> - magnetic field
> - gravitational field
> Quite a few others too...
> end of quote ::
>
> i must say that while seing it i remained stunned and open
> mouthed ...
>
> please note what you said
> space has
> (among the other nonsense )
>
> it has electric field
> gravitatioanl field (field as one not as many !!!)
> and magnetic fields
> so
>
> Mr PD i was asking about the **net space!**
> i was not asking about the 'visitors' there
> as if i would ask
> what are the properties of that room as an empty room
> and you wi ltell me
> there are tables chairs computers etc etc !!

Sorry, but the analogy is not quite right. A room has walls and a
floor that are properties of the room itself. It would be foolish to
say that an empty room cannot even have walls or a floor, or it would
not be completely empty. The room is not a room without floor or wall.
Emptying the room of furniture still leaves it with the properties of
walls and floor.

>
> take even your answer which you said:
> electric fields
> or magnetic fields
> are those fields part of the empty space ??

Yes, the field is part of space. Space is NOT just an empty container
for everything else that has properties.

>
> are there not places in that space in which
> THERE ***ARE NOT *** ELECTRIC OR MAGNETIC FIELDS ??!!

There are certainly places where the field has value zero, but a field
extends through all space. I'll give you an example. If you take two
positively charged ping-pong balls, this will create a static electric
field, a property of space, EVERYWHERE throughout the region around
the ping-pong balls. There will be a point on a line between the ping-
pong balls, though, where the value of the electric field is zero.
This doesn't mean that this point of space is any more "empty" than a
place where the electric field is not zero.

It's similar to a case of a ball being tossed straight up in the air.
It has nonzero momentum at every point of the flight. At the top of
the flight, the ball still has momentum, but it has zero value. It
simply isn't true that the ball *loses* momentum for an instant at the
top of the flight. Momentum is a property of the ball throughout the
flight, even at the very top.

>
> ARE THERE NOT LOCATIONS IN WHICH
> THERE IS NO MASS AT ALL ??
> even not 'relativistic mass '' (:-)
> 2
>
> and to my question about two mass in space
> that are very far away
> you said
> even so 'each of them curves space!!!'
> if a single mass curves space
> why does it move in a strait line ??!!

Because it curves the space in the region AROUND it. The path in the
region where the mass IS is straight. If you roll a ball along the
side of a bowl, its path will be an oval around the center of the
bowl, but if the ball is at the bottom of the bowl and you nudge it it
will go in a straight line.

This is no different than a charged object creating an electric field
in all the space around the object, but the object doesn't accelerate
due to its own electric field.

Again, this is BASIC stuff, found in any freshman physics text.

>
> can you prove that a single mass moves in space in a curved
> line ???
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Y.Porat on 14 Jul 2010 14:16

On Jul 14, 5:41 pm, P any !!!)
> > and magnetic fields
> > so
>
> > Mr PD i was asking about the **net space!**
> > i was not asking about the 'visitors' there
> > as if i would ask
> > what are the properties of that room as an empty room
> > and you wi ltell me
> > there are tables chairs computers etc etc !!
>
> Sorry, but the analogy is not quite right. A room has walls and a
> floor that are properties of the room itself. It would be foolish to
> say that an empty room cannot even have walls or a floor, or it would
> not be completely empty. The room is not a room without floor or wall.
> Emptying the room of furniture still leaves it with the properties of
> walls and floor.
>
>
>
> > take even your answer which you said:
> > electric fields
> > or magnetic fields
> > are those fields part of the empty space ??
>
> Yes, the field is part of space. Space is NOT just an empty container
> for everything else that has properties.
>
>
>
> > are there not places in that space in which
> > THERE ***ARE NOT *** ELECTRIC OR MAGNETIC FIELDS ??!!
>
> There are certainly places where the field has value zero, but a field
> extends through all space. I'll give you an example. If you take two
> positively charged ping-pong balls, this will create a static electric
> field, a property of space, EVERYWHERE throughout the region around
> the ping-pong balls. There will be a point on a line between the ping-
> pong balls, though, where the value of the electric field is zero.
> This doesn't mean that this point of space is any more "empty" than a
> place where the electric field is not zero.
>
> It's similar to a case of a ball being tossed straight up in the air.
> It has nonzero momentum at every point of the flight. At the top of
> the flight, the ball still has momentum, but it has zero value. It
> simply isn't true that the ball *loses* momentum for an instant at the
> top of the flight. Momentum is a property of the ball throughout the
> flight, even at the very top.
>
>
>
> > ARE THERE NOT LOCATIONS IN WHICH
> > THERE IS NO MASS AT ALL ??
> > even not 'relativistic mass '' (:-)
> > 2
>
> > and to my question about two mass in space
> > that are very far away
> > you said
> > even so 'each of them curves space!!!'
> > if a single mass curves space
> > why does it move in a strait line ??!!
>
> Because it curves the space in the region AROUND it. The path in the

==============================--------------------
can you prove that idiotic hand waving??
just prove it !!
that while a single mass is moving in space
space is curving it from all sides !!
my claim is that
it srrounds it from all sides
by a soft blanket of 3 centimeter thick !!

that is the kind of science that your
unlimited impertinence can produce !!

arnt you ashamed ???!!!
ashamed even by your own criteria
about what is physics science !!!
btw
if you like to steal soemmthing from me
better do it properly
in my circlon mopdel that i present at the appndix of my book
i show it sort of
the Circlon surround the secondary mass
in an unsymmetrical way
that i wonder of you understood it proprerly

yet the difference is that in my model
itr is done by a particle a massive one
that moves naturally in a closed circle
(NOT BY YOUR IDIOTIC SPACE !!)
if not disturbed on its way by another circlon etc etc
but that is mysuggested model
and thatis why i presented it only at my appandix!!
as a ""suggestion not as a theory given my GOD
and i assert it explicitly as not proven
as youi do it !!
because i am not a pompous crook as you are !!
and you crook call your private suggetion or other idiotic suggsetion
as
if your intention is to make me sick about discussing with you
you will get it soon !!

"basic knowlwdge known to a secondary school boy'''

no fucken demagogy as yourself will convice
an adult ** honest* serious scientists !!
Y.Porat
---------------------
...