Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 17 Mar 2010 21:23 On Mar 17, 6:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > 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. > > > Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > Tom Roberts There is round aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 17 Mar 2010 22:38 On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > 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. > > > Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > Tom Roberts Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity you are full of absurd nonsense. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity.
From: BURT on 18 Mar 2010 01:18 On Mar 17, 7:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > > The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > > without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > Tom Roberts > > Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature > and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your > 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity > you are full of absurd nonsense. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity. Space curves round as does its aether. The substance of space is its geometry and round aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 01:43 On Mar 18, 1:18 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 7:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > > > The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > > > without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > > Tom Roberts > > > Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature > > and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your > > 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity > > you are full of absurd nonsense. > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > is gravity. > > Space curves round as does its aether. The substance of space is its > geometry and round aether. > > Mitch Raemsch The 'substance' of space is its geometry. Sounds like you and Tom Roberts have the same 'understanding' of nature.
From: Esa Riihonen on 18 Mar 2010 05:55
mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 17, 6:42 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Perhaps the connection between the mathematical machinery of the GR and >> this aether pressure view is obvious - but frankly I just can't see it. >> Could you please elaborate. >> >> > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Some like > to say aether is matter and others like to say matter is aether. In > order to try and avoid this pointless discussion I say both matter and > aether are different states of mather. > > Since matter and aether are different states of mather both matter and > aether have mass. > > As the Earth orbits the Sun the aether which exists in front of the > Earth's path does not disappear when the matter which is the Earth > occupies the three dimensional space previously occupied by the aether. > The aether does not vanish. The aether is displaced by the matter which > is the Earth. > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. This > 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter > doing the displacing. > > How do we know there is a pressure associated with the aether displaced > by a massive object? Because light from distant stars reaches us from > where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not leave a void in > its wake). > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is > gravity. > > The analogy is a bowling ball with a million tiny holes drilled > throughout it which is placed into a tub of water. When the bowling ball > is placed into the tub of water, even though the water exists throughout > the bowling ball, the matter which is the bowling ball still displaces > the water. When you take the bowling ball out of the water is there a > void in the water in the tub? No, of course not. The water was exerting > a pressure towards, and if the bowling ball consists of millions of > individual particles, throughout the bowling ball. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In a > double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule always > enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether > displacement wave which enters and exits the available slits. The > associated aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting > the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > Since aether surrounds each and every nuclei which is the matter. The > faster an object is moving with respect to the aether the greater the > aether pressure exerted on and throughout the body. This is the why > atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. Nice story thanks. Now to make this physics we need some way to produce numbers to compare with actual measurements. That means a mathematical model of the situation. So what are the equations describing the C-60 double slit experiment. I assume they will have more or less same form as the QM equations, but the interpretation of the symbols must be different referencing to aether and its physical properties. Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical clocks. Cheers, Esa(R) -- A: Top posters. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? |