Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 16 Mar 2010 17:46 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 16, 5:18 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > 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? >> >> Parse error! >> >> Rearranging ... >> >> Does gravity propagate in likely light for the most responsible quanta? >> >> > I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is > gravity. Here: Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th century. njoy, Esa(R) -- Send a 200 ton block of stone to the name on the top of the list, and send this letter to six other pharaohs...
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 17:54 On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:18 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > 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? > > >> Parse error! > > >> Rearranging ... > > >> Does gravity propagate in likely light for the most responsible quanta? > > > I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is > > gravity. > > Here: > > Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th century. > I think I'll stick with: Gravity: Pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects.
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 18:03 On 3/16/10 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/16/10 12:20 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Wormy it is not space that is expanding. It is the objects in the >>> medium that are moving apart wrt each other. >> >> How can you tell? > > By observation as you listed above....roughly 71 km/s/mpc The metric expansion of space is the averaged increase of metric (i.e. measured) distance between distant objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself). Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present era only at relatively large scales (roughly the scale of galactic superclusters and above). At smaller scales matter has clumped together under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another. The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and according to the ΛCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions. While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe. It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 18:08 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? On page 25 he said A field like an electric field or a magnetic field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress possible within a soild body, but a field is a stress in space itself. > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 18:10
On Mar 16, 6:03Â pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/16/10 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> Â wrote: > >> On 3/16/10 12:20 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> Wormy it is not space that is expanding. It is the objects in the > >>> medium that are moving apart wrt each other. > > >> Â Â How can you tell? > > > By observation as you listed above....roughly 71 km/s/mpc > > The metric expansion of space is the averaged increase of metric (i.e. > measured) distance between distant objects in the universe with time. > It is an intrinsic expansionâthat is, it is defined by the relative > separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into > preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" > anything outside of itself). > > Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled > mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present > era only at relatively large scales (roughly the scale of galactic > superclusters and above). At smaller scales matter has clumped together > under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not > individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another. > The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the > universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly > to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological > constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and > according to the ÎCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in > the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions. > > While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving > faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no > such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus > possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other > at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be > observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus > be smaller than the entire universe. > > It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times > the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space > generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at > distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). > > Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space You must have missed my post. A 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. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits 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) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. How is this possible with your 'understanding' of nature? Don't be shy. Go ahead and answer the question. I will take your next non-answer to be what it is. Admittance you can not answer the question without absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. When you answer my thought experiment you will provide evidence you are not completely full of absurd nonsense. |