Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 18:16 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. 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. BTW only solid body can have stress so weinberg implied that space is a solid body. Ken Seto > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 16 Mar 2010 20:24 <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:9977223e-0db2-4ed5-8d7e-48d1b86a8b54(a)d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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? Yeup. Its just layman descriptions of physics .. physics does not propose any sort of material 'fabric' > 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. Aether?
From: Darwin123 on 16 Mar 2010 20:29 On Mar 15, 2:42 am, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. What exactly is a "force"? If you can't provide a specific definition of force, or provide a definition of "spacetime", then you can't say that a force has nothing to do with spacetime.
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 21:08 On Mar 16, 8:29 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 2:42 am, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". > > I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. > What exactly is a "force"? If you can't provide a specific > definition of force, or provide a definition of "spacetime", then you > can't say that a force has nothing to do with spacetime. The 'force' associated with 'spacetime' is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by the massive object. Gravity: Pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which atomic clocks tick.
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Mar 2010 23:43
mpc755 wrote: > 'curved spacetime' is meaningless nonsense in terms of a physical > description of nature. What is physically being 'curved'? [...] Nothing "physical" is involved, this is GEOMETRY. Until you actually LEARN something about the subject, there's no point in continuing. Tom Roberts |