Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 10:53 On Mar 17, 9:12 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No in the plane frame the crate still not directly under the plane all > the time. It encountered air resistance and thus slowed down > horizontally compared to the plane. Look in your textbook, Ken. > > >(You even have trouble seeing this in the plane frame at > > all.) You disagree that physical fields exist in empty space, > > Fields are stress in SPACE according to Weinberg. He said that much > like stresses in solids. This means that SPACE is just another term > for a unique solid physical medium. Good grief. Hopeless. Delusional. > > Ken Seto > > >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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 11:07 On Mar 17, 7:47 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > 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. > Aether Displacement is a physical interpretation of 'curved spacetime'. The math has already been developed. Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. > 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"
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 11:13 On Mar 17, 9:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > If quanta is responsible for gravity then quanta physically exists. This is simply more of your absurd nonsense and the state of delusional denial in which you exist. You need quanta to exist for gravity but you don't want it to exist for the propagation of light or for the movement of a C-60 molecule, so it exists for gravity and then you simply state it doesn't exist for the propagation for light. More magic. If quanta is responsible for the gravity associated with the Earth then the light from the Sun is interacting with quanta. If quanta is responsible for the gravity associated with the Earth then a moving C-60 molecule is interacting with quanta. You are getting there, ever so slowly. Your admittance to quanta being the reason for gravity is a first step. Now all you have to do is understand what occurs to quanta when three dimensional space is occupied by matter and you will have Quanta Displacement. I realize you are years away from even attempting to understand this, but someone else in QM will figure it out for you, just like they have figured out quantum gravity for you.
From: kenseto on 17 Mar 2010 13:31 On Mar 17, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No stress can exit in liquid or gas. Stress can exist only in solid. > > This is an incorrect statement, Ken. It is just flat wrong. What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > When you add your mistake to a correct statement that Weinberg makes, > this is only going to make your conclusion wrong. Wienberg compare stress in space to stresses in solid. So my conclusion is 100%correct. Ken Seto > > > So if stress exits in space as weinberg claimed then space must be a > > solid. Your ranting and parsing of words is irrelevant. > > Sorry, Ken, but pointing out a mistake of yours is not irrelevant. > When you can learn to acknowledge mistakes, then you will start to > make progress. But since you always claim that remarks by others about > your mistakes are irrelevant, you will never get off square one. > > You have to get over your personality defects before you will be able > to do science. > It will help also to learn some basic physics, like what is taught in > your freshman textbook. > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 14:57
On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No stress can exit in liquid or gas. Stress can exist only in solid. > > > This is an incorrect statement, Ken. It is just flat wrong. > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics text where it says that stress exists only in solids. Otherwise, as you say Ken, assertion is not an argument. > > > > > When you add your mistake to a correct statement that Weinberg makes, > > this is only going to make your conclusion wrong. > > Wienberg compare stress in space to stresses in solid. So my > conclusion is 100%correct. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > So if stress exits in space as weinberg claimed then space must be a > > > solid. Your ranting and parsing of words is irrelevant. > > > Sorry, Ken, but pointing out a mistake of yours is not irrelevant. > > When you can learn to acknowledge mistakes, then you will start to > > make progress. But since you always claim that remarks by others about > > your mistakes are irrelevant, you will never get off square one. > > > You have to get over your personality defects before you will be able > > to do science. > > It will help also to learn some basic physics, like what is taught in > > your freshman textbook. > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |