Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 09:05 On Mar 17, 1:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Quanta are not a medium. Do you know what "quanta" means? > > 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. Eh? "Quanta" doesn't mean "aether". Are you having problems with terminology?
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 09:07 On Mar 16, 2:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <5712f4e1-4e5a-4279-be5a-44560825e481 > @l25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <cZGdneEGQuFVSgLW4p2d...(a)giganews.com>, tjrob137 > > > @sbcglobal.net says... > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Mar 15, 3:40 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > >> [...] > > > > > > Or you can realize aether is displaced by matter and the pressure > > > > > associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. > > > > > To date, nobody has come up with a realistic model of that. All you have are > > > > rather vague words, mostly referring to concepts known to be refuted by ancient > > > > experiments. You have nothing, until and unless you can come up with a > > > > reasonably comprehensive theory that is not refuted by existing experiments. > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > The closest model to Aether Displacement is 'curved spacetime'. However, > > > 'curved spacetime' is meaningless nonsense in terms of a physical > > > description of nature. What is physically being 'curved'? 'Space'? What > > > is meant by 'space' is being curved by matter? What is 'space'? Are we > > > discussing three dimensional space? > > > No, we are talking about 4D spacetime. If you don't know know what the > > subject of discussion is, and you don't know the meaning of the words > > being used, why would you enter into the conversation saying that it's > > nonsense when you don't even know what's being talked about? > > > Does this approach work for you at parties? or have you never been to > > one to try? > > Does space consist of quanta or is space a void? Yes. Space being a void means it is devoid of matter. The quanta of gravity are not bits of matter, they are the quantized disturbances in spacetime itself, without matter present. PD
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 09:11 On Mar 16, 4:28 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. You disagree with a lot of things in your freshman physics text. You disagree that an object dropped from a plane stays under the plane, so that in the plane frame it falls vertically, even though your book tells you so. (You even have trouble seeing this in the plane frame at all.) You disagree that physical fields exist in empty space, even though your book tells you so. You disagree that empty space has physical properties like permittivity, permeability, impedance, even though your book tells you so. You disagree that fields have momentum and energy, even though your book tells you so. There's lots of places in your freshman text where you just don't get it. > > 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: PD on 17 Mar 2010 09:14 On Mar 16, 5:08 pm, 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? > > 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. Note what Weinberg actually said: "...something LIKE the various sorts of stress possible within a solid body, but a field is a stress IN SPACE ITSELF." He does not say that stress only happens in solid bodies. He says that stress happens in solid bodies AND in empty space, and the stress in empty space is something like the stress in solid bodies. This does NOT mean that empty space is a solid body. > > > > > 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: PD on 17 Mar 2010 09:18
On Mar 16, 5:16 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. > > 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. OK, the above is what Weinberg said. > BTW only solid body can have stress This is what YOU say, not what Weinberg said. > so weinberg implied that space is > a solid body. No, he did not, because he does not say that only solid bodies can have stress. In fact, he said that empty space can have stress too. Ken, you have this nasty habit of combining something that Weinberg says with something YOU say, and then claiming that the conclusion from the combination is what Weinberg says. You have this nasty habit of combining something that Einstein says with something YOU say, and then claiming that the conclusion from the combination is what Einstein says. You have this nasty habit of combining something that I say with something YOU say, and then claiming that the conclusion from the combination is what I say. When you do this, you are LYING. Weinberg did NOT say that an electric field is a stress in a solid body. He said that an electric field is a stress in empty space. Weinberg did NOT say that only solid bodies can have stress; YOU did. When you claimed Weinberg said it, you were LYING. > > 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 - > > |