Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 09:34 On Mar 16, 5:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > [...] > > >> > 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 > > Where does Weinberg say that, Ken? In his book "Dream of a Final Theory"
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 09:49 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" > > 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. permittvity and permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. Ken Seto
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 09:55 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. > > > > > 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
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 10:12 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? 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. Ken Seto > > > What is that fabric of spacetime? > > It is a visual analogy (but not an accurate portayal as something material) > of the geometry of the paths objects naturally take. You can, if you like, > imagine lots of object moving freely in various directions, and their paths > being like threads that weave a fabric. But its all just pretty analogy. > Don't get so hung up on the word 'fabric'- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 10:48
On 3/16/10 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > Empty space by definition cannot have property. permittvity and > permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. > > Ken Seto Haven't you notice this property of space that it in expanding at roughly 71 km/s/Mpc ? |