Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 14:59 On Mar 17, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. If I tell you that a cat has four legs like a lizard, but is a mammal, you should not draw the conclusion that mammals are lizards or that cats are lizards. Weinberg said that the electric field is LIKE a stress in a solid, but is a stress in space. You should not draw the conclusion that space is a solid or that electric fields are stresses in a solid. > > > 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: Urion on 17 Mar 2010 15:31 On Mar 17, 5:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If quanta is responsible for the gravity associated with the Earth > then the light from the Sun is interacting with quanta. If light interacting with some sort of "aether" is the cause of gravity then why is there gravity when there is no sun? It's always night on half the planet. This makes me believe that gravity is really not related to light.
From: BURT on 17 Mar 2010 16:59 On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 5:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > If quanta is responsible for the gravity associated with the Earth > > then the light from the Sun is interacting with quanta. > > If light interacting with some sort of "aether" is the cause of > gravity then why is there gravity when there is no sun? It's always > night on half the planet. This makes me believe that gravity is really > not related to light. Light propagates through Einstein's gravity continuum. Slowing down to a slower C and gaining energy by Gamma for the strength of gravity. When light is out of gravity it has fundamental energy level. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 17:51 On Mar 17, 3:31 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 5:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > If quanta is responsible for the gravity associated with the Earth > > then the light from the Sun is interacting with quanta. > > If light interacting with some sort of "aether" is the cause of > gravity Light interacting with some sort of 'aether' has nothing to do with gravity. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. The poster I was responding to has finally made it to the step of understand something physical causes gravity. The poster is a QM true believer so it must be excused if the best step the poster can offer is 'quanta is responsible' for gravity. The point I was trying to make, which you completely misinterpreted, is if quanta is responsible for gravity then whatever you want to consider the quanta to physically exist as in order for it to be responsible for gravity, light from the sun is physically propagating in quanta. Once you get quanta is responsible for gravity and light propagates in quanta responsible for gravity you are just QM'ing aether. There is nothing fundamentally incorrect with QM'ing aether and if that is what QMrs need to do in order to understand aether and the propagation of light. 'We' need to start somewhere with those who choose to believe in absurd nonsense such as a 'wave function probability' is physical and geometry is responsible for gravity. You have to understand, QMrs believe math causes physical behaviors in nature. 'They' have placed the cart before the horse. They are so screwed up in what they think is occurring in nature they actually believe mathematical constructs are the reason for observed physical behaviors in nature. How screwed up is that? It gets so bad that for all of the QMrs on this forum only one has answered my thought experiment consisting of a moving C-60 molecule and the double slit experiment and the only answer proposed by QMrs so far is the future determines the past. Physics as presently 'understood' by QMrs has nothing to do with nature. > then why is there gravity when there is no sun? It's always > night on half the planet. This makes me believe that gravity is really > not related to light.
From: PD on 17 Mar 2010 17:59
On Mar 17, 4:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The poster I was responding to has finally made it to the step of > understand something physical causes gravity. The poster is a QM true > believer so it must be excused if the best step the poster can offer > is 'quanta is responsible' for gravity. > > The point I was trying to make, which you completely misinterpreted, > is if quanta is responsible for gravity then whatever you want to > consider the quanta to physically exist as in order for it to be > responsible for gravity, light from the sun is physically propagating > in quanta. > This is so cute. Note he says that quanta must be physically real, but that quantum mechanics (which describes the behavior of quanta) is not about stuff that is physically real. |