Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 18 Mar 2010 15:07 On Mar 18, 1:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> mpc755 wrote: > >>> On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > >> The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > >> without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature > > and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your > > 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity > > you are full of absurd nonsense. > > As I said, "... without any understanding of it whatsoever." > > I am discussing MODELS of nature, and make no attempt to describe what is > "responsible" for any physical phenomenon like gravity, ================== > because I know that can > never be known to humans. Oh My! <<The theoretical possibility of there being some other, non-human intelligence at work in the process of evolution must be acknowledged. However, any such intelligence would be observable and measurable, just as human breeding is an observable, measurable phenomenon. >> http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_best_case_for_intelligent_design We would much prefer a Lorentz ether theorist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory over an Intelligent-designer. Please reconsider. :-)) Sue... > > The absurdity and nonsense is all yours. You will remain mystified until you > actually STUDY modern physics. > > Tom Roberts
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:01 On Mar 18, 1:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> mpc755 wrote: > >>> On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > >> The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > >> without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature > > and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your > > 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity > > you are full of absurd nonsense. > > As I said, "... without any understanding of it whatsoever." > > I am discussing MODELS of nature, and make no attempt to describe what is > "responsible" for any physical phenomenon like gravity, because I know that can > never be known to humans. > The pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. Now you know.
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:05 On Mar 18, 2:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 11:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 10:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 7:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/17/2010 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > >>> 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. > > > > > > > >> Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > > > > > > > The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern > > > > > > > physics without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > > > > > I think it's perfectly valid to ask if the curvature of spacetime is > > > > > > something real or if it's a useful fiction, however asserting a priori > > > > > > that it is "meaningless nonsense" or that "nothing 'physical' is > > > > > > involved" are both quite premature. One trouble I have with > > > > > > philosophers is that they assert such things and run with them and you > > > > > > have to whack 'em with a two-by-four to get them to look at their > > > > > > premise. Unfortunately the ranks of philosopher wannabees seem to be > > > > > > considerably larger than then ranks of physicist wannabees who are > > > > > > actually serious about it. > > > > > > And in this particular case, MPC has a preconceived notion about what > > > > > makes sense and what is absurd, and there is no need (at least in his > > > > > mind) to test whether that categorization is appropriate. > > > > > > PD > > > > > And in your mind in order to maintain support of a failed theory you > > > > have to resort to the future determining the past. > > > > > In your mind since you really do not understand what is physically > > > > occurring in nature your resort to labels such as 'fields' and > > > > 'virtual' particles. > > > > > Yes, I realize you think 'virtual' particles physically exist out of > > > > nothing and I realize you think a 'field' is physically real. But in > > > > the reality of nature they are not. > > > > See? You've already made decisions in your mind about what is real and > > > what is not, what makes sense and what is not, what is absurd and what > > > is not. And you've not figured out how to test whether those decisions > > > are right or not. You just make the decisions and go with it. > > > > Scientists don't do that. > > > 'Scientists' decide the future determines the past because they do not > > understand what occurs physically in nature? > > > 'Scientists' invent 'virtual' particles which exist out of nothing > > because they do not understand what occurs physically in nature? > > > 'Scientists' use the term 'field' because they do not understand what > > occurs physically in nature? > > Actually, no, they don't decide that. They put it up as a testable > model, Like a model where the future determines the past? Like a model where 'scientists' (i.e. mathematicians) do not understand what occurs physically in nature and confuse a 'wave function probability' with a physical wave? Like a model where 'scientists' (i.e. mathematicians) do not understand what occurs physically in nature and confuse geometry with the aether displaced by a massive object? I see a difference between nature and mathematical constructs. How about instantaneous action at a distance? What happened to the model of conservation of momentum? How does the the downgraded photon pair having exact opposite angular momentums in order to maintain the original photons momentum get 'lost' in order to have a model where there is instantaneous action at a distance?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:10 On Mar 18, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 11:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 10:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 4:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The poster I was responding to has finally made it to the step of > > > > > > > > understand something physical causes gravity. The poster is a QM true > > > > > > > > believer so it must be excused if the best step the poster can offer > > > > > > > > is 'quanta is responsible' for gravity. > > > > > > > > > The point I was trying to make, which you completely misinterpreted, > > > > > > > > is if quanta is responsible for gravity then whatever you want to > > > > > > > > consider the quanta to physically exist as in order for it to be > > > > > > > > responsible for gravity, light from the sun is physically propagating > > > > > > > > in quanta. > > > > > > > > This is so cute. Note he says that quanta must be physically real, but > > > > > > > that quantum mechanics (which describes the behavior of quanta) is not > > > > > > > about stuff that is physically real. > > > > > > > You're making my point. > > > > > > > Gravity is physically real. > > > > > > > Only in your interpretation of the absurd nonsense of QM can gravity > > > > > > not be physically real. > > > > > > > If quanta is responsible for gravity then quanta is physically real > > > > > > Of course they are real. And quantum mechanics describes those real > > > > > things. Quantum mechanics is the study of how quanta (those real > > > > > things) behave. Thank you. > > > > > So, you are walking down the street and you are 'tied' to the Earth > > > > because quanta is responsible for gravity. > > > > Yes, this seems likely. > > > > > Now it is a bright sunny > > > > day outside and you are being bombarded by light quanta. > > > > Yes. > > > > > How does > > > > light quanta interact with gravity quanta? > > > > We don't know for sure, because we don't have a solid model yet for > > > how gravitational quanta work. This doesn't mean we know nothing. We > > > do know they interact, and we have observational measurements of how > > > much. > > > In AD, the 'quanta' responsible for gravity and the 'quanta' > > responsible for light is aether. If you conceptualize the aether as > > consisting of quanta you will advance your understanding of nature. > > > > > Are they one in the same? > > > > No. > > > Then you will never understand nature. Light waves propagate through > > the aether and the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a > > massive object is gravity. > > Well, let's see. You asked a bunch of questions about quantum > mechanics, since you didn't know anything about it. Then when I told > you the answers, You have also told me the future determines the past when I know it is more correct for a C-60 molecule to have an associated aether displacement wave. Exactly how do you know a gravity quanta is different than a light quanta?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:14
On Mar 18, 3:07 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 18, 1:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>> 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. > > >>> Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > >> The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > > >> without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > > Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature > > > and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your > > > 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity > > > you are full of absurd nonsense. > > > As I said, "... without any understanding of it whatsoever." > > > I am discussing MODELS of nature, and make no attempt to describe what is > > "responsible" for any physical phenomenon like gravity, > > ================== > > > because I know that can > > never be known to humans. > > Oh My! > > <<The theoretical possibility of there being > some other, non-human intelligence at work in > the process of evolution must be acknowledged. > However, any such intelligence would be observable > and measurable, just as human breeding is an observable, > measurable phenomenon. >>http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_best_case_for_i... > > We would much prefer a Lorentz ether theoristhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > over an Intelligent-designer. Please reconsider. > > :-)) > > Sue... > Lorentz ether theory is incomplete. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. In Einstein's train gedanken the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is the train because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter where the Earth is the most matter. If the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment are able to view each others clocks for a period of time both Observers would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on the embankment. The train and the embankment are not moving relative to one another, in terms of the rate at which the atomic clock on the train and the atomic clock on the embankment tick. The train and the embankment are moving with respect to the aether. |