Question about gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 22:31 On Mar 18, 9:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 5:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 7:37 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:47 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > > > > gravity. > > > > > > idiot > > > > > >http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 > > > > > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml > > > > > Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) > > > > > Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) > > > > > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> > > > > > No aether > > > > > > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> > > > > > Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 > > > > > No Lorentz violation > > > > > > idiot > > > > > > -- > > > > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > > > > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > > > > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > > gravity. > > > > The confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance. > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > is gravity. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which > > an atomic clock ticks.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What then is the clock rate for the moving C-60 molecule? Does its own > wave exert a pressure that slows its clock down? > And how do we measure this? > > Mitch Raemsch In terms of the displacement wave and the aether the following analogy may help: 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." So, in this analogy the C-60 molecule is the swimmer and the aether is the water. The faster the swimmer moves through the water the greater the water pressure on the swimmer. If the swimmer were made of millions of individual particles where the water was able to surround each and every particle then the pressure would not only be 'on' the swimmer but through the swimmer. The faster the swimmer moves with respect to the water the greater the water pressure on and through the swimmer. If the swimmer were an atomic clock and the water the aether the faster the atomic clock was moving with respect to the aether the greater the aether pressure on and throughout the clock, causing it to tick slower.
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 01:04 On Mar 18, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > wrote: > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > by the double solution theory > > > Louis de BROGLIE' > > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > > aether. > > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > > sense to me > > Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more > complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring physically > in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and actually have to > understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 molecule has an > associated aether displacement wave. > > "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines > of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable > physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- > functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at > variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his > keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the > maze !" > > The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. > > If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. > > > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. > > The equations are in the articles you are unwilling to read or refuse > to read because of your 'understanding' of a field. > > If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a > field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a > moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then > that is up to you. > > It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to > insist the aether as a material is different then a field. > > > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > lecture.pdf > > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > > >> clocks. > > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. > > That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has > nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the > human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. > > If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to > cook then has time changed? > > No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because > there is less pressure. > > > I wonder what would be > > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > > actual time (biological time) are different? > > Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do > with time. > > If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? > > You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically > occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. > > Just because you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic > clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does > does not mean time has changed. > > If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock > to tick slower then has time change? As your battery operated clock begins to tick slower and slower compared to the other clocks in your house do you stare at the battery operated clock in disbelief as time changes for this particular clock? If this particular clock was the only clock in your house as it begins to tick slower and slower compared to every other clock in existence would time have changed in your house? What's the difference between a battery operated clock and an atomic clock in a GPS satellite? You understand what is occurring physically to your battery operated clock in order to cause it to tick slower so you replace the batteries. Since you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists you allow yourself to incorrectly assume time changes. So, I ask you once again, if you do not know what is causing your battery operated clock to tick slower and it is the only clock in your house does time change in your house? If not, how is this different than simply refusing to understand what causes atomic clocks to tick at different rates? Einstein's concept 'space-time' is described physically as follows: - 'curved space-time' is the aether displaced by a massive object. - Motion with respect to the aether, and gravity (the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object), determine the aether pressure on each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the object. The greater the aether pressure the slower atoms oscillate. "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move" Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter how to move.
From: mathematician on 19 Mar 2010 01:49 On 17 maalis, 10:13, mathematician <hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: > On 16 maalis, 13:40, mathematician <hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: > > > > > On 15 maalis, 08:42, 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". Many other > > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > > apparent difficulty: > > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > > know its effects? > > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > > other, and not both... > > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > > appreciated! > > > > Henry Norman > > > I have thought one possibility that origin of gravitational > > interaction could be > > > "oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery" > > > What you think about this possibility? > > > (Neutrinos are described as colored black holes in this H-M´s > > picture.) > > > Best Regards, > > > Hannu Poropudas > > I would expect that different kind of "light particles" would > be produced due oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery. > > I would expect also that these "light particles" would also > correspond different kind of waves. > > Please take a look my summary from year 1992 to 2009. > Address of this more than 1500 ASCII text pages can be > found from my profile page. > > (Question here is not ordinary photon and corresponding > ordinary electromagnetic waves.) > > Hannu I would also expect that these light particles are not Higg´s particles W+- , Z0, H0 due these are composite in H-M´s picture. They are something presently unknown ? Hannu
From: kenseto on 19 Mar 2010 09:27 On Mar 18, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 6:29 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 2:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 17, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:08 pm, 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? > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Note what Weinberg actually said: "...something LIKE the various sorts > > > > > > > > of stress possible within a solid body, but a field is a stress IN > > > > > > > > SPACE ITSELF." He does not say that stress only happens in solid > > > > > > > > bodies. He says that stress happens in solid bodies AND in empty > > > > > > > > space, and the stress in empty space is something like the stress in > > > > > > > > solid bodies. This does NOT mean that empty space is a solid body. > > > > > > > > No stress can exit in liquid or gas. Stress can exist only in solid. > > > > > > > This is an incorrect statement, Ken. It is just flat wrong. > > > > > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > > > > > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > > > > Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics > > > > text where it says that stress exists only in solids. > > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > > occur in liquid or gas. > > Or in space. > > In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces > a shear in the liquid. That's not stress in liquid. > > Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are > solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think > that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. So empty space is not empty. It is a new entity (medium or aether) that can have stress and permittivity. So what is your point? Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, as you say Ken, assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > > When you add your mistake to a correct statement that Weinberg makes, > > > > > > this is only going to make your conclusion wrong. > > > > > > Wienberg compare stress in space to stresses in solid. So my > > > > > conclusion is 100%correct. > > > > If I tell you that a cat has four legs like a lizard, but is a mammal, > > > you should not draw the conclusion that mammals are lizards or that > > > cats are lizards. > > > > Weinberg said that the electric field is LIKE a stress in a solid, but > > > is a stress in space. You should not draw the conclusion that space is > > > a solid or that electric fields are stresses in a solid. > > > So what he said implies that space is a solid. You are so stupid. > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > So if stress exits in space as weinberg claimed then space must be a > > > > > > > solid. Your ranting and parsing of words is irrelevant. > > > > > > > Sorry, Ken, but pointing out a mistake of yours is not irrelevant. > > > > > > When you can learn to acknowledge mistakes, then you will start to > > > > > > make progress. But since you always claim that remarks by others about > > > > > > your mistakes are irrelevant, you will never get off square one.. > > > > > > > You have to get over your personality defects before you will be able > > > > > > to do science. > > > > > > It will help also to learn some basic physics, like what is taught in > > > > > > your freshman textbook. > > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: bert on 19 Mar 2010 09:41
On Mar 15, 1:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 1:42 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". Many other > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > apparent difficulty: > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > know its effects? > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > other, and not both... > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > appreciated! > > > Henry Norman > > It's definitely a different kind of animal. > Part of the issue is understanding better what it is the particle > represents. > For example, in electromagnetism, the classical picture is a field in > the background of space and time. The particle is a quantization of > disturbances in that field in the background of space and time. > Here, the field IS space and time itself, not in a background of space > and time. And the particle would be a quantization of a disturbance in > space and time itself, not a disturbance of a field in the background > of space and time. > The naive (but appealing) view of the electromagnetic quantum is > something that moves *through* the background of time and space. > The gravitational quantum isn't quite like that, as it is not really > moving *through* the background of time and space, but is more closely > tied to space and time itself. > > It's interesting that some of the more promising candidates for > quantum gravity are "backgroundless" in that they do not assume a > space and time through which gravitons move. Instead, space and time > themselves arise from the interactions of the quanta. This makes my > head hurt a little, but it does look promising. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein gave space a concave curve. TreBert gave space a convex curve. Einstein used cocave space so stuff falls in. TreBert gave convex curve to give reality to space inflating. Both work on accelerating motion. Accelerating relates 100% to gravity. Inertia is 100% same as gravity. They are relative to each other. TreBert |