Gravity is a property of mass - not a property of space !!
in [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: ben6993 on 21 Jul 2010 04:28 On Jul 21, 2:05 am, "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 > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > much simpler than you could imagine!! If it is so easy then why is there so much disagreement? > i dont build empty space by space!! > NATURE did it > by > MASS IN IT !!! > do i have to go one with that explanation?? You have just written that empty space was constructed by nature putting mass into "it"? (> "NATURE did it by MASS IN IT !!!") This seems to fit my second option closely: x = x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + .... where x is an intitial 'something' with a finite volume. And the end product is still the same 'something' with 'nothing' added to it. Ie the nothingness contribution has vanished. It is still x. > 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' ??!! (:-) Of course I don't agree with you when you are claiming to have made big breakthroughs in physics. That is incredibly difficult to do. Even more so without using maths and using only slogans. And even more so when spending so much time posting on a ng when you could be working on physics. Let me think of somthing you have written that I do not disagree with ... ah yes, you have accepted SR. I do not disagree with you there, but I know of a man who does ...
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 07:40 On Jul 21, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 5:49 am, reated 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > How can they seperate when they are gravitationally bound? Do they > > > have a repulsion force? > > > Still they would mix. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > The analogy is a bowling ball in a tank of water. The bowling ball > > displaces the water. When you take the bowling ball out of the tank of > > water the water fills-in where the bowling ball was. The water applied > > pressure towards the bowling ball. > > > Dark matter and matter are different states of the same material. > > Dark matter is displaced by matter. > > Dark matter displaced by matter exerts pressure towards the matter. > > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. > > ----------------' > in reality you dont have that 'TANK > OF WATER > > there is not outer more massive than your 'water'' object > > standing there at the periphery > and 'waiting' the water to come > and them push them back'!! > > your model and metaphor > is completely in your imagination alone > the real model is completely different !!! > ------------------ > Y.Porat > ----------------------------- You didn't answer the question. 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.
From: Y.Porat on 21 Jul 2010 08:31 On Jul 21, 1:06 am, 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? ----------------- bravo donkey!!... under my guidance donkey makes some minor advance.....(step by step . and hard work of mine ... yet it is not enough yet .. you ned more advance dont worry it will come in time as your innovations (:-)) yet we have here an **ungrateful*** donkey ... (:-) anyway it is all recorded !!fro other readers Y.P --------------------------------- -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Jul 2010 08:56 On Jul 21, 10:28 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 2:05 am, "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 > > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > much simpler than you could imagine!! > > If it is so easy then why is there so much disagreement? > > > i dont build empty space by space!! > > NATURE did it > > by > > MASS IN IT !!! > > do i have to go one with that explanation?? > > You have just written that empty space was constructed by nature > putting mass into "it"? (> "NATURE did it by MASS IN IT !!!") > > This seems to fit my second option closely: x = x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 > + .... > where x is an intitial 'something' with a finite volume. And the end > product is still the same 'something' with 'nothing' added to it. Ie > the nothingness contribution has vanished. It is still x. > > > 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' ??!! (:-) > > Of course I don't agree with you when you are claiming to have made > big breakthroughs in physics. That is incredibly difficult to do. ----------------------- (:-) (:-) ddi youunderstamd how i proved that THERE MUST BE A COMPLETELY EMPTY SAPCE ?? I DID IT WITHOUT A TINY BIT OF MATHEMATICS !! provided you are intelligent enough to understand it 2 ddi you understand how i proved by the Momentum of photon = hf/c that the photon has just one kind of mass?? i wonder and i am not going to repeat it hear yet you will have to admit that it is unprecedented !!! (provided you was intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to understand it ... 3 sorry i was not intelligent enough to understand your x plus 0 +0 etc etc it is either i dont understand you or you dont understand me so please explain again in another way for a retard like me including verbal explanations my claim is that space is nothing and undefined unless you 'plant it by mass indifferent locations dont you agree with it ?? can you do any physics or know anything about space unless it is planted with mass ??!! BTW what soo you think about my NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE) - NO REAL PHYSICS !! what do you think about my Atomic and nuclear model presented only as an abstract on the net? provided you are able or in a position- to understand it another BTW is possible that there is a bit of jealousy in your assertion that i never did any break through in physics ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------- dont you think it is a breakthrough in physics TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------- > Even more so without using maths and using only slogans. And even > more so when spending so much time posting on a ng when you could be > working on physics. > > Let me think of somthing you have written that I do not disagree > with ... ah yes, you have accepted SR. I do not disagree with you > there, but I know of a man who does ...
From: bert on 21 Jul 2010 11:03
On Jul 21, 8:56 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:28 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 2:05 am, "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 > > > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > much simpler than you could imagine!! > > > If it is so easy then why is there so much disagreement? > > > > i dont build empty space by space!! > > > NATURE did it > > > by > > > MASS IN IT !!! > > > do i have to go one with that explanation?? > > > You have just written that empty space was constructed by nature > > putting mass into "it"? (> "NATURE did it by MASS IN IT !!!") > > > This seems to fit my second option closely: x = x + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 > > + .... > > where x is an intitial 'something' with a finite volume. And the end > > product is still the same 'something' with 'nothing' added to it. Ie > > the nothingness contribution has vanished. It is still x. > > > > 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' ??!! (:-) > > > Of course I don't agree with you when you are claiming to have made > > big breakthroughs in physics. That is incredibly difficult to do. > > ----------------------- > (:-) (:-) > ddi youunderstamd how i proved that > THERE MUST BE A COMPLETELY EMPTY SAPCE ?? > I DID IT WITHOUT A TINY BIT OF MATHEMATICS !! > provided you are intelligent enough to understand it > 2 > ddi you understand how i proved by the > Momentum of photon = hf/c > > that the photon has just one kind of mass?? > i wonder > and i am not going to repeat it hear > > yet you will have to admit that it is unprecedented !!! > (provided you was intelligent enough > and knowledgeable enough to understand it ... > > 3 > sorry > i was not intelligent enough to > understand your > x plus 0 +0 etc etc > it is either i dont understand you > > or you dont understand me > so please explain again in another way > for a retard like me > including verbal explanations > > my claim is that space is nothing > and undefined unless you 'plant it by mass > indifferent locations > dont you agree with it ?? > can you do any physics or know anything about > space > unless it is planted with mass ??!! > BTW > what soo you think about my > > NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE) - > NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > what do you think about my Atomic and nuclear > model > presented only as an abstract on the net? > provided you are able or in a position- > to understand it > > another BTW > > is possible that there is a bit of jealousy > in your assertion that i never did any > break through in physics ?? > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------- > > dont you think it is a breakthrough in physics > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------------- > > > > > Even more so without using maths and using only slogans. And even > > more so when spending so much time posting on a ng when you could be > > working on physics. > > > Let me think of somthing you have written that I do not disagree > > with ... ah yes, you have accepted SR. I do not disagree with you > > there, but I know of a man who does ...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If John Wheeler was alive he would tell you gravity is both. I will do it for him. Gravity is a property of both "space" and "matter" TreBert |