Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 00:31 On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > 'curved spacetime' is meaningless nonsense in terms of a physical > > description of nature. What is physically being 'curved'? [...] > > Nothing "physical" is involved, this is GEOMETRY. > > Until you actually LEARN something about the subject, there's no point in > continuing. > > Tom Roberts Not only do we have the absurd nonsense of a 'wave function probability' is physical. Geometry is now the cause of gravity. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Until you understand there is a difference between what occurs 'physically' in nature and mathematics you should not continue. Definition of spacetime: The pressure from the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. Atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist.
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 01:20 On Mar 16, 3:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is gravity due to quanta? > > Most likely. That's what I said. > Does light propagate in the quanta responsible for gravity? Does a moving C-60 molecule travel in the quanta responsible for gravity? The quanta is displaced by matter. The quanta is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure the quanta exerts towards the matter. How do we know the quanta exerts pressure towards the matter? Because the quanta is responsible for gravity. The pressure associated with the quanta displaced by a massive object is gravity. A moving particle has an associated wave in the quanta. A moving particle of matter has an associated displacement wave in the quanta. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated displacement wave in the quanta which enters and exits the available slits. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit, then obviously, the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. The detectors cause decoherence of the associated displacement wave in the quanta and there is no interference. If there detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits the associated displacement wave in the quanta exits the available slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. The faster an object moves with respect to the quanta the greater the pressure associated with the quanta on and throughout the object. The greater the quanta pressure on an atomic clock the slower the clock ticks. Quanta Displacement. If you think it can't be known if space consists of quanta or not then Aether Displacement is more correct. Quanta Displacement = Aether Displacement = Unified Theory.
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 02:02 On Mar 16, 3:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is gravity due to quanta? > > Most likely. That's what I said. > Does light propagate in quanta responsible for gravity? Does a moving C-60 molecule travel in quanta responsible for gravity? Quanta is displaced by matter. Quanta is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure quanta exerts towards the matter. How do we know quanta exerts pressure towards the matter? Because quanta is responsible for gravity. The pressure associated with quanta displaced by a massive object is gravity. A moving particle has an associated wave in quanta. A moving particle of matter has an associated displacement wave in quanta. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated displacement wave in quanta which enters and exits the available slits. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit, then obviously, the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. The detectors cause decoherence of the associated displacement wave in quanta and there is no interference. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits the associated displacement wave in quanta exits the available slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. The faster an object moves with respect to quanta the greater the pressure associated with quanta on and throughout the object. The greater quanta pressure on an atomic clock the slower the clock ticks. Quanta Displacement. If you think it can't be known if space consists of quanta or not then Aether Displacement is more correct. Quanta Displacement = Aether Displacement = Unified Theory.
From: mathematician on 17 Mar 2010 04:13 On 16 maalis, 13:40, mathematician <hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: > On 15 maalis, 08:42, 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". Many other > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > apparent difficulty: > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > know its effects? > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > other, and not both... > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > appreciated! > > > Henry Norman > > I have thought one possibility that origin of gravitational > interaction could be > > "oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery" > > What you think about this possibility? > > (Neutrinos are described as colored black holes in this H-M´s > picture.) > > Best Regards, > > Hannu Poropudas I would expect that different kind of "light particles" would be produced due oscillation of size of neutrino´s signal periphery. I would expect also that these "light particles" would also correspond different kind of waves. Please take a look my summary from year 1992 to 2009. Address of this more than 1500 ASCII text pages can be found from my profile page. (Question here is not ordinary photon and corresponding ordinary electromagnetic waves.) Hannu
From: Esa Riihonen on 17 Mar 2010 07:47
mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> [snip] >> >>> 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. By all means please do. Now it would be interesting to see your actual theory in action - that would mean a rigorous logical (read mathematical) framework to produce some numbers to compare with actual measurements. If I may suggest, calculating planetary orbits (including Mercury) would be a good point to start. Cheers, 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" |