Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 16:06 On Mar 16, 3:55 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > mpc you and I are in no position to debate with professional > physicists like PD and Sam Wormly because we cannot come up with > sophisticated and rigorous enough mathematical arguments. > > Hell I bet you don't even know multivariable calculus let alone the > more advanced topics in the physics curriculum which are a > prerequisite to understanding general relativity like analytical > mechanics, quantum mechanics, John David Jackson's electrodynamics, > atomic and molecular physics etc. The 'professional physicists' either choose to believe the future determines the past in order to explain my thought experiment or they go into a state of delusional denial because they can't answer it. One of the so-called 'professional physicists' believes quanta is most likely responsible for gravity but refuses to answer if light propagates with respect to the quanta. You can be weak if you so choose but what the so-called 'professional physicists' believe, at least the ones you mention, is absurd nonsense.
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 16:15 On Mar 16, 2:49 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <0eba6af4-b04a-48de-b9ef-cb3d3273a917 > @x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <721ab03f-626c-4d39-a6b3-fdd74d5a4ed4 > > > @r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <c70a6d13-d455-4c1b-a89d-638c0e184597 > > > > > @g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <5de7f693-2ded-4ba8-b3d0-ebb76db8285c@ > > > > > > > 19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says.... > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:48 pm, 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered my question! > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did. Even if you think I didn't why are you afraid to answer mine? > > > > > > > > > > > > "I did. It's there somewhere. OK, even if it's not there, I did > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. So let's pretend I did, and now answer my question, or admit > > > > > > > > > > > that you're afraid to answer it." > > > > > > > > > > > > Geez, if you were any good at manipulation, then at least you'd be > > > > > > > > > > > fun, but as it is you're just being pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > The definition of pathetic is your 'understanding' of nature. > > > > > > > > > > > In one post you say gravity is most likely due to quanta even though > > > > > > > > > > attempting to understand quanta as the reason for gravity hurts your > > > > > > > > > > conceptually deficient head at the same time you state non-material > > > > > > > > > > light waves travel through a void. > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is it? Is gravity due to quanta > > > > > > > > > > Most likely. That's what I said. > > > > > > > > > > > or is space a void? > > > > > > > > > > It is devoid of matter, though it is not devoid of physical > > > > > > > > > properties. That's what I said. > > > > > > > > > > Now, feel free to ask me another question about something I did not > > > > > > > > > say. > > > > > > > > > Oh, and 4+17=32 > > > > > > > > Does space consist of quanta or is space a void? > > > > > > > Answered above. > > > > > > Oh, and 4+17=32. > > > > > > Does light propagate through quanta or a void? > > > > > I have no idea why you repeat questions that have been answered. It > > > > appears to be a personality defect. > > > > > 4+17=32. > > > > You stated gravity is most likely due to quanta. > > > > I am asking you if light propagates through the quanta. > > > "Due to" =/= "through the" > > Do you know what "quanta" means? > > > 4+17=32 > > Does light propagate with respect to the quanta most likely responsible > for gravity? What do you mean "propagate with respect to"? Light quanta propagate. Strong interaction quanta propagate. Weak interaction quanta propagate. Gravitational quanta propagate, if they exist. They are different interactions. Fish propagate in the sea. Surface waves propagate in the sea. It doesn't make much sense to ask if the surface waves propagate with respect to the fish. You know, this is working. I'm starting to believe that 4+17=32.
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 16:01 not if there is no perfect plenum a la Pascal; then, every thing is "due to quanta." > Is gravity due to quanta or is space a void? thus: since all of the primes are determined by the seive of Eratosthenes (who also pushed an Egyptian expedition that made it all the way to Chile, ne'er returned), why would "correlations" of twin-primes not be related to "distributions" of all (or just single) primes? what was Fermat's proof of the so-called last theorem? > So my saying you can toss the prime distribution entire in considering > twin primes probability is like slapping Jesus. thus: quasars are cool, even if they are not as far, away as the Hubble assumption'd make them; I mean, then, they'd be cool-er. phonons & photons: they are merely the quanta of being-captured- by-the-device! thus: it was only a double-negative, unless you believe that his proof of n=4 came, before his marginal miracle. I mean, why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise? (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.) > There is exactly the same amount of conlcusive evidence that he *did* > have a proof. Your preference for the triple negative notwithstanding. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 16:40 On Mar 16, 4:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:49 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <0eba6af4-b04a-48de-b9ef-cb3d3273a917 > > @x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > On Mar 16, 2:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In article <721ab03f-626c-4d39-a6b3-fdd74d5a4ed4 > > > > @r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > In article <c70a6d13-d455-4c1b-a89d-638c0e184597 > > > > > > @g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says.... > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <5de7f693-2ded-4ba8-b3d0-ebb76db8285c@ > > > > > > > > 19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:48 pm, 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered my question! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did. Even if you think I didn't why are you afraid to answer mine? > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I did. It's there somewhere. OK, even if it's not there, I did > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. So let's pretend I did, and now answer my question, or admit > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're afraid to answer it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geez, if you were any good at manipulation, then at least you'd be > > > > > > > > > > > > fun, but as it is you're just being pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > > The definition of pathetic is your 'understanding' of nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > In one post you say gravity is most likely due to quanta even though > > > > > > > > > > > attempting to understand quanta as the reason for gravity hurts your > > > > > > > > > > > conceptually deficient head at the same time you state non-material > > > > > > > > > > > light waves travel through a void. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is it? Is gravity due to quanta > > > > > > > > > > > Most likely. That's what I said. > > > > > > > > > > > > or is space a void? > > > > > > > > > > > It is devoid of matter, though it is not devoid of physical > > > > > > > > > > properties. That's what I said. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, feel free to ask me another question about something I did not > > > > > > > > > > say. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, and 4+17=32 > > > > > > > > > Does space consist of quanta or is space a void? > > > > > > > > Answered above. > > > > > > > Oh, and 4+17=32. > > > > > > > Does light propagate through quanta or a void? > > > > > > I have no idea why you repeat questions that have been answered. It > > > > > appears to be a personality defect. > > > > > > 4+17=32. > > > > > You stated gravity is most likely due to quanta. > > > > > I am asking you if light propagates through the quanta. > > > > "Due to" =/= "through the" > > > Do you know what "quanta" means? > > > > 4+17=32 > > > Does light propagate with respect to the quanta most likely responsible > > for gravity? > > > Fish propagate in the sea. Does light propagate in the quanta most likely responsible for gravity?
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 16 Mar 2010 16:50
kenseto wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:25:40 -0700: > On Mar 16, 9:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. You have not given the page. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |