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: Y.Porat on 16 Jul 2010 12:06

On Jul 16, 4:49 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:37 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.
>
> Hi Porat. To know that a given volume was completely empty would
> imply that you knew everything that could possibly be in it, and that
> you have excluded all possibilities. That would imply that you had an
> infinite knowledge of all that could be 'not nothing'. Exotic
-------------------
(:-) (:-)
Hi Ben
i am sire you ddint went to the depth of my asertioi\n that
i am sure that there is empty space
ie including nothing!!
all you ahve to do is
TO THINK
AFAIN
TO USE YOUR THINKING POWER !!

my prove is that

THERE IS MOVEMENT IN OUR UNIVERSE!!
=======================

I KNOW IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN ANY TEXT BOOK
BUT THAT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT
I INNOVATE SOEMTNING THAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN ANY TEXT BOOK ..(:-)
-------------
now in order of **not** to spoon feeding you
i am waiting for you to THINK..!!!
and explain to me why i said it !!!

i would say that it is simple
but not trivial !!!

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

..
> particles, dark matter, dark energy, if they exist, and other things
> not yet suspected. How would you know that a volume that appears to
> you to look empty actually has nothing in it?

From: Androcles on 16 Jul 2010 13:43

"ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b29cc53-4872-4945-863d-debbe0f7253e(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 3:37 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.

Hi Porat. To know that a given volume was completely empty would
imply that you knew everything that could possibly be in it, and that
you have excluded all possibilities. That would imply that you had an
infinite knowledge of all that could be 'not nothing'. Exotic
particles, dark matter, dark energy, if they exist, and other things
not yet suspected. How would you know that a volume that appears to
you to look empty actually has nothing in it?
========================================
That's easy, he could examine the space between your ears.

From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 13:47

On Jul 16, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 12:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 10:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 11:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 16, 10:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > O' wise one, share your wisdom for all to see.
>
> > No. This wisdom is openly available in media different than and much
> > better suited than this one for learning the answers to the questions
> > you ask.
>
>
> O' wise one, share your wisdom for all to see.
>

I bet this approach works really well with the ladies.

From: ben6993 on 16 Jul 2010 14:03

On Jul 16, 6:43 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b29cc53-4872-4945-863d-debbe0f7253e(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 3:37 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.
>
> Hi Porat. To know that a given volume was completely empty would
> imply that you knew everything that could possibly be in it, and that
> you have excluded all possibilities. That would imply that you had an
> infinite knowledge of all that could be 'not nothing'. Exotic
> particles, dark matter, dark energy, if they exist, and other things
> not yet suspected. How would you know that a volume that appears to
> you to look empty actually has nothing in it?
> ========================================
> That's easy, he could examine the space between your ears.

He could look for what's left of your posts when the malice and curses
are removed.

From: Androcles on 16 Jul 2010 14:20

"ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:652c13d5-1728-4da3-ac4b-8ff60553d32f(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 6:43 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b29cc53-4872-4945-863d-debbe0f7253e(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 3:37 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.
>
> Hi Porat. To know that a given volume was completely empty would
> imply that you knew everything that could possibly be in it, and that
> you have excluded all possibilities. That would imply that you had an
> infinite knowledge of all that could be 'not nothing'. Exotic
> particles, dark matter, dark energy, if they exist, and other things
> not yet suspected. How would you know that a volume that appears to
> you to look empty actually has nothing in it?
> ========================================
> That's easy, he could examine the space between your ears.

He could look for what's left of your posts when the malice and curses
are removed.
===========================================
Yeah, he won't find any dork matter or erotic farticles in my posts.