Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 15 Mar 2010 16:57 Or you can realize aether is displaced by matter and the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: BURT on 15 Mar 2010 17:03 On Mar 15, 11:27 am, 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. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light aether substance spreads out in space. It must necessarily come back together and expand again effecting energy density alike. Mitch Raemsch
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 17:04 Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:40:41 -0500: > MicroTech wrote: >> Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? (...) > At present, the best model we have of gravity that is generally accepted > in the physics community is General Relativity. This may be precised because it can lead to a misleading view. It is right that general relativity is considered the main approach to understanding relativistic gravitational phenomena at the classical level. However, this common view is based over the incorrect thought that general relativity is *identical* to a field theory of gravity. This is the reason which the OP quoted to Hawking saying two contradictory things. Also Feynman states in his textbook that general relativity has both a geometrical and a non-geometrical formulation, but as showed in the specific references cited before, his proof of identity was invalid. Field Theory of Gravitation: Desire and Reality 1999: arXiv:gr-qc/9912003v1. Baryshev, Yurij, V. "From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality" in http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/17/1703n04/S0218271808012085.html http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html As a consequence, many people, who is *actually* using the field theory of gravity in their predictions and analysis of phenomena think, erroneously, that are using general relativity. Just because they were said that the two approaches are identical. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: BURT on 15 Mar 2010 17:15 Light's immaterial aether nature is most important. Mitch Raemsch
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 17:36
Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:40:41 -0500: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> First, recent research shows that GR does not reduces to NG, with >> textbooks claims about this being wrong. > > This depends on the meaning of "reduce". Certainly the physicist's sense > of this holds, The meaning of reduction of a theory to other is unambiguous for theoreticians and, of course, all the physicists who studied this agree with me on that "GR does not reduces to NG". Their quotes are cited in the report (in your reply you snipped all references cited) E.g. Joy Christian (expert in limits of general relativity) openly accepts that the original theory of gravity of Newton is not the Galilean limit form of general relativity. Even Miguel Alcubierre who initially did some silly mistakes about this work, has finally emphasized that: "Strictly speaking, Newton's theory is not contained in GR" If you disagree with our findings please give us the references where you have proved the contrary. The same rigorous analysis was done over other theories of gravity, with the result that other theories (more rigorous than GR) give us the correct Newtonian limit For example, this is from an expert in Stuckelberg Feynman theory: "your paper looks good, and the main observation that the Stueckelberg et. al theory has the consistent Newton limit, and that it passes in other respects, sounds very reasonable to me." > in that the experiments that support NG do not refute GR, > but rather support it as well. And you continue talking about stuff that you did not even read! If you have the minimal honesty of doing comments about stuff that you first took the time to read, you would know that claim about experiments was also showed to be wrong in a pair of sections of the report devoted to this (in your reply you snipped all references cited). Paraphrasing Dirac, we have at hand "one theory [GR] for dealing with non-relativistic effects and a separate disjoint theory [NG] for dealing with certain relativistic effect". -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |