Is Gravitational Force Dependent on a Falling Object's Speed?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Static g-fields
Next: DETAILS OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: Androcles on 10 Dec 2009 08:27 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message news:4B20EC0D.90608(a)somewhere.no... > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:53:47 -0800 (PST), xxein <xxein(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 7, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in >>>> messagenews:v8rqh5tp7pj3qvhfmdt64rdhrpb3r2miui(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>> When do we get to the "sensible" part? >>> xxein: You two never will. You two have little knowledge of current >>> physical theory and even less of the physic as it ultimately manifests >>> itself. >> >> Is that your best answer to my questions? > > Your question is meaningless. > In a Newtonian world the gravitational force doesn't > depend on the speed of the object, as you well know. > In GR there is no such thing as "gravitational force" > which can depend on velocity. > > But you are obviously thinking of the fact that the path > of a particle in a gravitational field deviates from > what Newton predicts. (Bending of light!) > That falsifies Newton's theory of gravitation, which can't > be saved by any kind of Rabbidgian reverse thought bubbles. > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ Bending of light by GR: Fig. 3 in http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf "Fig. 3 shows an instant image of the central part of the beams, drawn in the non rotating inertial frame. The beams are slightly curved because the different parts of the beams were emitted at different angles as measured in the non rotating frame. The beam going with the rotation (red curve) is slightly concave, while the beam going in the opposite direction (blue curve) is slightly convex." So is GR spacetime concave or convex, Tusseladd? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm That falsifies Einstein's theory of gravitation, which can't be saved by any kind of Tusseladdian reverse thoughtless bubbles.
From: Androcles on 10 Dec 2009 17:53 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:gbr2i5lqqg29n1bap3ponp3rb5et638hha(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:39:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:53:47 -0800 (PST), xxein <xxein(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Dec 7, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in >>>>> messagenews:v8rqh5tp7pj3qvhfmdt64rdhrpb3r2miui(a)4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>> When do we get to the "sensible" part? >>>> xxein: You two never will. You two have little knowledge of current >>>> physical theory and even less of the physic as it ultimately manifests >>>> itself. >>> >>> Is that your best answer to my questions? >> >>Your question is meaningless. >>In a Newtonian world the gravitational force doesn't >>depend on the speed of the object, as you well know. > > I know the possibility that it might has NOT been tested. > >>In GR there is no such thing as "gravitational force" >>which can depend on velocity. > > ...but we can ignore that kind of nonsense...even though Tom Roberts once > assured me that the force DOES fall off slightly with speed according to > GR. That settles it then. If Humpty Roberts said it then it has to be total bullshit.
From: Androcles on 10 Dec 2009 20:52 "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:6i13i5pk6kn3nsqhmtq19l7bsh7tk9snej(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:53:37 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:gbr2i5lqqg29n1bap3ponp3rb5et638hha(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:39:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> >>>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:53:47 -0800 (PST), xxein <xxein(a)comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 7, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >>>>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in >>>>>>> messagenews:v8rqh5tp7pj3qvhfmdt64rdhrpb3r2miui(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When do we get to the "sensible" part? >>>>>> xxein: You two never will. You two have little knowledge of current >>>>>> physical theory and even less of the physic as it ultimately >>>>>> manifests >>>>>> itself. >>>>> >>>>> Is that your best answer to my questions? >>>> >>>>Your question is meaningless. >>>>In a Newtonian world the gravitational force doesn't >>>>depend on the speed of the object, as you well know. >>> >>> I know the possibility that it might has NOT been tested. >>> >>>>In GR there is no such thing as "gravitational force" >>>>which can depend on velocity. >>> >>> ...but we can ignore that kind of nonsense...even though Tom Roberts >>> once >>> assured me that the force DOES fall off slightly with speed according to >>> GR. >> >>That settles it then. If Humpty Roberts said it then it has to be total >>bullshit. > > But it's good to see two relativity 'experts' disagreeing. It's funny to see you citing Roberts to back your crackpot theory of swinging pendula.
From: BURT on 10 Dec 2009 20:58 On Dec 10, 5:52 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in messagenews:6i13i5pk6kn3nsqhmtq19l7bsh7tk9snej(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:53:37 -0000, "Androcles" > > <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> > > wrote: > > >>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > >>news:gbr2i5lqqg29n1bap3ponp3rb5et638hha(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:39:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >>> <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > >>>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:53:47 -0800 (PST), xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> On Dec 7, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > >>>>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in > >>>>>>> messagenews:v8rqh5tp7pj3qvhfmdt64rdhrpb3r2miui(a)4ax.com... > > >>>>>>> When do we get to the "sensible" part? > >>>>>> xxein: You two never will. You two have little knowledge of current > >>>>>> physical theory and even less of the physic as it ultimately > >>>>>> manifests > >>>>>> itself. > > >>>>> Is that your best answer to my questions? > > >>>>Your question is meaningless. > >>>>In a Newtonian world the gravitational force doesn't > >>>>depend on the speed of the object, as you well know. > > >>> I know the possibility that it might has NOT been tested. > > >>>>In GR there is no such thing as "gravitational force" > >>>>which can depend on velocity. > > >>> ...but we can ignore that kind of nonsense...even though Tom Roberts > >>> once > >>> assured me that the force DOES fall off slightly with speed according to > >>> GR. > > >>That settles it then. If Humpty Roberts said it then it has to be total > >>bullshit. > > > But it's good to see two relativity 'experts' disagreeing. > > It's funny to see you citing Roberts to back your crackpot theory > of swinging pendula.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A circular orbit has no strength of gravity accelerating it. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 10 Dec 2009 22:57
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:qdf3i555m8ui2shvt3pk0ev4ref8vhjamc(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:52:28 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:6i13i5pk6kn3nsqhmtq19l7bsh7tk9snej(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:53:37 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:gbr2i5lqqg29n1bap3ponp3rb5et638hha(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:39:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:53:47 -0800 (PST), xxein <xxein(a)comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in >>>>>>>>> messagenews:v8rqh5tp7pj3qvhfmdt64rdhrpb3r2miui(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When do we get to the "sensible" part? >>>>>>>> xxein: You two never will. You two have little knowledge of >>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>> physical theory and even less of the physic as it ultimately >>>>>>>> manifests >>>>>>>> itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that your best answer to my questions? >>>>>> >>>>>>Your question is meaningless. >>>>>>In a Newtonian world the gravitational force doesn't >>>>>>depend on the speed of the object, as you well know. >>>>> >>>>> I know the possibility that it might has NOT been tested. >>>>> >>>>>>In GR there is no such thing as "gravitational force" >>>>>>which can depend on velocity. >>>>> >>>>> ...but we can ignore that kind of nonsense...even though Tom Roberts >>>>> once >>>>> assured me that the force DOES fall off slightly with speed according >>>>> to >>>>> GR. >>>> >>>>That settles it then. If Humpty Roberts said it then it has to be total >>>>bullshit. >>> >>> But it's good to see two relativity 'experts' disagreeing. >> >>It's funny to see you citing Roberts to back your crackpot theory >>of swinging pendula. > > The plain fact is, none of the EPG has the faintest idea what Einstein's > crackpot theory is all about anyway...so I might as well stir up some > internal > trouble.... There is no trouble .. you can't even do that. The one who can't understand relativity is you, as clearly evident from your crackpot nonsense claims about it. |