Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 09:49 On Mar 15, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 15, 1:25 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:08 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 15, 9:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > > > > > > > In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal force in > > > > > > > Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is just the > > > > > > > product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the object. > > > > > > > > Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. This is > > > > > > > very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a distance. > > > > > > > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > > > > > > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for the > > > > > > interacting object to follow. The problem with such assumption is: > > > > > > What is the fabric of spacetime physically? This question is relevant > > > > > > because SR/GR deny the existence of physical space. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > What ? ".... SR/GR deny the existence of physical space......" > > > > > > What the devil are you saying man ????? > > > > > > The theory of relativity says that gravity IS deformation of space. > > > > > How can this same theory deny the existence of space ??? Better visit > > > > > your optometrist really, really soon. > > > > > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as > > > > "empty space".???? > > > > Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does > > > not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical > > > properties are not limited to matter. > > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space > > according to steven weinberg > > Solid medium? He said nothing about an electric field being a stress > in a solid medium. > Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Hey idiot...His said that in his book "Dream of a final theory" > > Physical properties are not limited to matter. > > You know that there is a permittivity of EMPTY SPACE? You know there > is a permeability of EMPTY SPACE? You know there is an impedance of > EMPTY SPACE? You know there is a gravitational potential in EMPTY > SPACE Empty space by definition cannot have property. permittvity and permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. Ken Seto
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 09:55 On Mar 16, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 15, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:25 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:08 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 9:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > > > > > > > > In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal force in > > > > > > > > Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is just the > > > > > > > > product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the object. > > > > > > > > > Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. This is > > > > > > > > very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a distance. > > > > > > > > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > > > > > > > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for the > > > > > > > interacting object to follow. The problem with such assumption is: > > > > > > > What is the fabric of spacetime physically? This question is relevant > > > > > > > because SR/GR deny the existence of physical space. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > What ? ".... SR/GR deny the existence of physical space......." > > > > > > > What the devil are you saying man ????? > > > > > > > The theory of relativity says that gravity IS deformation of space. > > > > > > How can this same theory deny the existence of space ??? Better visit > > > > > > your optometrist really, really soon. > > > > > > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as > > > > > "empty space".???? > > > > > Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does > > > > not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical > > > > properties are not limited to matter. > > > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space > > > according to steven weinberg > > > Solid medium? He said nothing about an electric field being a stress > > in a solid medium. > > Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? > > Hey idiot...His said that in his book "Dream of a final theory" I have that book. Cite the page. He does not say that fields are stresses in a solid medium. > > > > > Physical properties are not limited to matter. > > > You know that there is a permittivity of EMPTY SPACE? You know there > > is a permeability of EMPTY SPACE? You know there is an impedance of > > EMPTY SPACE? You know there is a gravitational potential in EMPTY > > SPACE > > Empty space by definition cannot have property. That is incorrect. Empty space means devoid of matter. It does NOT mean devoid of physical properties. > permittvity and > permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. That is incorrect. Read your freshman physics text where these properties are discussed. These properties have been ascribed to empty space for 150 years. > > Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 10:12 On Mar 15, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:bd2b0f8a-592e-429c-8c0d-9085f56314fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:09cf23d5-351a-4602-adce-f4cfbf00034c(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> >> Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > >> >> In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal > >> >> force > >> >> in > >> >> Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is > >> >> just > >> >> the > >> >> product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the object.. > > >> >> Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. > >> >> This > >> >> is > >> >> very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a > >> >> distance. > > >> > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > >> > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for the > >> > interacting object to follow. > > >> Its just how things move. There no more need for there to be a 'physical > >> entity' (and certainly not a material one) for that to happen, than there > >> needs to be one in 3D Newtonian/Euclidean/Gaillean space to make objects > >> follow a straight line (ie follow Newton's first law) > > > Then why did you guys say that object follows the curvATURE in the > > fabric of spacetime? > > Because its sounds nice. It gives one something to imagine .. its hard to > imagine curvature of something that isn't a material substance. ROTFLOL....Because it sounds nice eh? So do you guys do physics because it sounds nice? BTW the reason why an object follows the curvature of space is because the curvature is existing in a medium occupying space. Ken Seto > > > What is that fabric of spacetime? > > It is a visual analogy (but not an accurate portayal as something material) > of the geometry of the paths objects naturally take. You can, if you like, > imagine lots of object moving freely in various directions, and their paths > being like threads that weave a fabric. But its all just pretty analogy. > Don't get so hung up on the word 'fabric'- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 10:48 On 3/16/10 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > Empty space by definition cannot have property. permittvity and > permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. > > Ken Seto Haven't you notice this property of space that it in expanding at roughly 71 km/s/Mpc ?
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 11:45
On Mar 16, 2:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/16/10 1:06 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/16/10 12:49 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Mar 16, 1:31 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 3/15/10 2:13 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> In Aether Displacement, my theory, matter and aether are different > >>>>> states of the same material. > > >>>> If your Aether existed, one would be able to detect it > >>>> and measure measure its properties. > > >>> It is detectable. It is measurable. Every time a double slit > >>> experiment is performed the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > >>> slit. It is the displacement wave in the aether the moving C-60 > >>> molecule makes in the aether which enters and exits the available > >>> slits and creates interference upon exit the slits. This alters the > >>> direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > >> What are some of its measured properties and how were the > >> measurements made. Cite publications and/or governing equations. > > > Yes, the old I wish to remain ignorant so anything that has already > > been calculated is correct no matter how nonsensical it is. The > > delusional denial defense. Even though it is physically impossible for > > a C-60 molecule to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > > change in momentum, that is not what is important. What is important > > is the mathematics of QM are able to determine the type of > > interference pattern the C-60 molecule creates. > > > Never mind what QM requires of the C-60 molecule is physically > > impossible in nature. No, that is not what is important. For in QM, we > > make stuff up like 'wave function probabilities' are physical. No > > matter the fact that a wave function probability is a mathematical > > construct. That is not what is important. What is important is the > > ability to remain in a state of delusional denial. > > > Do you want to play the 'future determines the past' and other > > nonsensical answers from the delusional denial QM club? And here we > > go... > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > is in the slits. If the detectors are left at the exits the C-60 > > molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors > > are placed and then removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 > > molecule is in the slits the C-60 molecule creates and interference > > pattern. > > > How is this possible? > > > Only one of your delusional denial club members has even offered up an > > answer and the answer by your club member was the future determines > > the past. You read that right. The C-60 molecule will enter one or > > multiple slits depending upon there being, or not being, detectors at > > the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future. > > > In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters a single slit and the > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > > exits multiple slits. Detectors at the exits to the slits causes > > decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns the > > wave into chop) and there is no interference. When the detectors are > > removed prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit the displacement > > wave exits the slits and creates interfere which alters the direction > > the C-60 molecule travels. > > > Your answer? > > I want to know some of your aether's measured properties and how > were the measurements made. Cite publications and/or governing > equations. You haven't answered my question. The C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. If the detectors are at the exits to the slits when the C-60 molecule gets there then the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) then the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. How is this physically possible in the absurd nonsense of QM? Is this what you consider science? You cannot answer a question so you choose to exist in your state of delusional denial instead of admitting you cannot answer the question unless you choose to believe in absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past and the C-60 molecule enters a single slit or multiple slits depending upon there being detectors at the exits to the slits when it gets there in the future? The most correct answer, to date, is the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave and it is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. When the associated aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Placing detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. |