Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 16:40 On Mar 16, 4:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > > > Fish propagate in the sea. Does light propagate in the quanta most likely responsible for gravity?
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 16 Mar 2010 16:50 kenseto wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:25:40 -0700: > 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. You have not given the page. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 17:03 On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > 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? Ah, OK then, just so we're clear. You have a basic freshman physics book, but you don't believe even the basic stuff that's in there. So your problem is not with relativity, but with ALL of physics. And so you have this little fantasy going where you are going to make up something out of your head that replaces ALL of physics, even stuff that has been understood for 400 years. You have a fixed (but limited) understanding of what you think physics should be about, and you are willing to dispense with even the basics in a freshman physics text if it does not agree with that understanding. Very good. Now we understand what level crank you are. PD
From: Esa Riihonen on 16 Mar 2010 17:18 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 16, 4:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? >> >> >> Fish propagate in the sea. > > Does light propagate in the quanta most likely responsible for gravity? Parse error! Rearranging ... Does gravity propagate in likely light for the most responsible quanta? Done Esa(R) -- I was having dinner with my boss and his wife and she said to me, "How many potatoes would you like Tim?". I said "Ooh, I'll just have one please". She said "It's OK, you don?t have to be polite" "Alright" I said "I'll just have one then, you stupid cow"
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 17:17
On Mar 16, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > Ah, OK then, just so we're clear. You have a basic freshman physics > book, but you don't believe even the basic stuff that's in there. So > your problem is not with relativity, but with ALL of physics. > > And so you have this little fantasy going where you are going to make > up something out of your head that replaces ALL of physics, even stuff > that has been understood for 400 years. > > You have a fixed (but limited) understanding of what you think physics > should be about, and you are willing to dispense with even the basics > in a freshman physics text if it does not agree with that > understanding. > > Very good. Now we understand what level crank you are. > > PD Does light propagate in the quanta most likely responsible for gravity? |