Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 18 Mar 2010 09:50 On Mar 18, 6:29 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 2:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > occur in liquid or gas. Or in space. In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces a shear in the liquid. Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. > > > > > > > > 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. > > So what he said implies that space is a solid. You are so stupid. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 18 Mar 2010 09:51 On Mar 18, 7:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 3/17/2010 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts 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. > > I think it's perfectly valid to ask if the curvature of spacetime is > something real or if it's a useful fiction, however asserting a priori > that it is "meaningless nonsense" or that "nothing 'physical' is > involved" are both quite premature. One trouble I have with > philosophers is that they assert such things and run with them and you > have to whack 'em with a two-by-four to get them to look at their > premise. Unfortunately the ranks of philosopher wannabees seem to be > considerably larger than then ranks of physicist wannabees who are > actually serious about it. And in this particular case, MPC has a preconceived notion about what makes sense and what is absurd, and there is no need (at least in his mind) to test whether that categorization is appropriate. PD
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 10:52 On Mar 18, 5:55 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > 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. > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle.' In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the aether. 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE The wave nature of the electron Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie-lecture.pdf > 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. > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > A: Top posters. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 10:59 On Mar 18, 8:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 3/17/2010 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts 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. > > I think it's perfectly valid to ask if the curvature of spacetime is > something real or if it's a useful fiction, however asserting a priori > that it is "meaningless nonsense" or that "nothing 'physical' is > involved" are both quite premature. One trouble I have with > philosophers is that they assert such things and run with them and you > have to whack 'em with a two-by-four to get them to look at their > premise. Unfortunately the ranks of philosopher wannabees seem to be > considerably larger than then ranks of physicist wannabees who are > actually serious about it. Describe how matter physically curves spacetime or go back to being a mathematician. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule, detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slits. The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slits then the C-60 molecule creates and interference pattern. Explain how this is physically possible. I will note your use of the term 'wave function probability' is a mathematical concept and not physical. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. When the associated aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. Describe what occurs physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates in a GPS satellite than a similar clock does on the Earth. I will note your use of the term 'geometry' is a mathematical construct and represents your inability to describe what occurs physically in nature to cause an atomic clock to tick at different rates. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists.
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 11:00
On Mar 18, 8:47Â am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/18/10 6:10 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: > > > > > Wormy it is not space that is expanding. It is the objects in the > > medium that are moving apart wrt each other. > > The metric expansion of space is the averaged increase of metric (i.e. > measured) distance between distant objects in the universe with time. > > It is an intrinsic expansionâthat is, it is defined by the relative > separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into > preexisting space. (In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" > anything outside of itself). > > Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled > mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present > era only at relatively large scales (roughly the scale of galactic > superclusters and above). At smaller scales matter has clumped together > under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not > individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another. > The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the > universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly > to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological > constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and > according to the ÎCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in > the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions. > > While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving > faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no > such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus > possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other > at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be > observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus > be smaller than the entire universe. > > It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times > the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space > generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at > distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). > > Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space You must have missed my post. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. How is this possible with your 'understanding' of nature? Don't be shy. Go ahead and answer the question. I will take your next non-answer to be what it is. Admittance you can not answer the question without absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. When you answer my thought experiment you will provide evidence you are not completely full of absurd nonsense. |