Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 18:08 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. > > 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 -
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 18:10 On Mar 16, 6:03Â pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/16/10 2:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> Â 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. > > >> Â Â 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 expansionâthat 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 ÎCDM 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 You must have missed my post. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. How is this possible with your 'understanding' of nature? Don't be shy. Go ahead and answer the question. I will take your next non-answer to be what it is. Admittance you can not answer the question without absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. When you answer my thought experiment you will provide evidence you are not completely full of absurd nonsense.
From: kenseto on 16 Mar 2010 18:16 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. 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. BTW only solid body can have stress so weinberg implied that space is a solid body. 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 > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 16 Mar 2010 20:24 <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:9977223e-0db2-4ed5-8d7e-48d1b86a8b54(a)d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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? Yeup. Its just layman descriptions of physics .. physics does not propose any sort of material 'fabric' > 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. Aether?
From: Darwin123 on 16 Mar 2010 20:29
On Mar 15, 2:42 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". I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. What exactly is a "force"? If you can't provide a specific definition of force, or provide a definition of "spacetime", then you can't say that a force has nothing to do with spacetime. |