Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 15:55 On Mar 16, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 12:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > Sure it does....no matter, no physical property. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but physics has said differently for the last couple > hundred years at least. Hey idiot...the medium occupying space is a unique kind of matter. > > You have it in your head that the only things real in the universe are > material things, The medium occupying space is a unique kind of material thing. >and that real physical descriptions are always about > material and only material things, and that anything else that is > described must be some kind of illusion or mathematical trick. This is > not the case. Physical descriptions and in fact physical theories > involve the immaterial as well as the material. A MEDIUM OCCUPYING SPACE IS NOT IMMATERIAL. IT IS A UNIQUE KIND OF MATERIAL. > > To a physicist, for example, an electric field is a very real thing -- > it can carry energy and momentum just as well as a material thing can > -- and it is completely immaterial. Matter can disappear completely, > yielding energy, but there are physical properties that remain (and > some of them remain unchanged) through that disappearance. As I said bfore an electric field is just stress in the medium occupying space. > > Light is not material, and yet it has wavelength, frequency, > intensity, energy density, momentum, angular momentum, and a slew of > other very physical properties. Light is wave-packets in the medium occupying space. > > I could list a number of other examples that are also listed in your > freshman physics book. If you did not read your freshman physics book, > and because of that lain ziness, you came to believe that the only things > that are physically real are material things, then you need to start > over again with freshman physics. > > > > > 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. > > > Hey idiot These are not properties of empty space. They are properties > > of a medium occupying space. > > Read your freshman physics book. It says differently. Why do I need to read my freshman physics book when I already told you that I disagree with it? > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Ken Seto- 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: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 16:01 On Mar 16, 3:55 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > mpc you and I are in no position to debate with professional > physicists like PD and Sam Wormly because we cannot come up with > sophisticated and rigorous enough mathematical arguments. > > Hell I bet you don't even know multivariable calculus let alone the > more advanced topics in the physics curriculum which are a > prerequisite to understanding general relativity like analytical > mechanics, quantum mechanics, John David Jackson's electrodynamics, > atomic and molecular physics etc. The 'professional physicists' either have to choose to believe in the future determines the past in order to explain my thought experiment or they go into a state of delusional denial because they can't answer it. One of the so-called 'professional physicists' believes quanta is most likely responsible for gravity but refuses to answer if light propagates through the quanta. You can be weak if you so choose but what the so-called 'professional physicists' believe, at least the ones you mention, is absurd nonsense.
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 16:06 On Mar 16, 3:55 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > mpc you and I are in no position to debate with professional > physicists like PD and Sam Wormly because we cannot come up with > sophisticated and rigorous enough mathematical arguments. > > Hell I bet you don't even know multivariable calculus let alone the > more advanced topics in the physics curriculum which are a > prerequisite to understanding general relativity like analytical > mechanics, quantum mechanics, John David Jackson's electrodynamics, > atomic and molecular physics etc. The 'professional physicists' either choose to believe the future determines the past in order to explain my thought experiment or they go into a state of delusional denial because they can't answer it. One of the so-called 'professional physicists' believes quanta is most likely responsible for gravity but refuses to answer if light propagates with respect to the quanta. You can be weak if you so choose but what the so-called 'professional physicists' believe, at least the ones you mention, is absurd nonsense.
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 16:15 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? What do you mean "propagate with respect to"? Light quanta propagate. Strong interaction quanta propagate. Weak interaction quanta propagate. Gravitational quanta propagate, if they exist. They are different interactions. Fish propagate in the sea. Surface waves propagate in the sea. It doesn't make much sense to ask if the surface waves propagate with respect to the fish. You know, this is working. I'm starting to believe that 4+17=32.
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 16:01
not if there is no perfect plenum a la Pascal; then, every thing is "due to quanta." > Is gravity due to quanta or is space a void? thus: since all of the primes are determined by the seive of Eratosthenes (who also pushed an Egyptian expedition that made it all the way to Chile, ne'er returned), why would "correlations" of twin-primes not be related to "distributions" of all (or just single) primes? what was Fermat's proof of the so-called last theorem? > So my saying you can toss the prime distribution entire in considering > twin primes probability is like slapping Jesus. thus: quasars are cool, even if they are not as far, away as the Hubble assumption'd make them; I mean, then, they'd be cool-er. phonons & photons: they are merely the quanta of being-captured- by-the-device! thus: it was only a double-negative, unless you believe that his proof of n=4 came, before his marginal miracle. I mean, why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise? (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.) > There is exactly the same amount of conlcusive evidence that he *did* > have a proof. Your preference for the triple negative notwithstanding. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |