Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 17:22 On Mar 16, 5:18 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > 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? > I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. > 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: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 17:28 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. No I don't believe that you can have physical fields in empty space and at the same time denying that empty space is just another term for a unique material occupying all of space.That's what I am disagreeing. Ken Seto > > 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 17:46 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 16, 5:18 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> 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? >> >> > I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is > gravity. Here: Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th century. njoy, Esa(R) -- Send a 200 ton block of stone to the name on the top of the list, and send this letter to six other pharaohs...
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 17:54 On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:18 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> 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? > > > I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is > > gravity. > > Here: > > Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th century. > I think I'll stick with: Gravity: Pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects.
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 18:03
On 3/16/10 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/16/10 12:20 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Wormy it is not space that is expanding. It is the objects in the >>> medium that are moving apart wrt each other. >> >> How can you tell? > > By observation as you listed above....roughly 71 km/s/mpc The metric expansion of space is the averaged increase of metric (i.e. measured) distance between distant objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself). Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present era only at relatively large scales (roughly the scale of galactic superclusters and above). At smaller scales matter has clumped together under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another. The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and according to the ΛCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions. While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe. It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space |