There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 15:50 On Mar 23, 3:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 1:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > > > > > > > > > > > > > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, that sounds like an idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how you think gravity works, PD. > > > > > > > > > > > > Make it short and simple so a public school > > > > > > > > > > > > kid could understand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > > > > > > > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > > > > > > > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > > > > > > > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > > > > > > > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > > > > > > > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > > > > > > > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > > > > > > > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > > > > > > > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > > > > > > > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > > > > > > > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > > > > > > > > > you a *lie*. > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > > > > > > > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > > > > > > > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > > > > > > > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > > > > > > > > > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > > > > > > > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > > > > > > > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > > > > > > > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > > > > > > > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > > > > > > > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > > > > > > > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > > > > > > > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > > > > > > > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > > > > > > > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > > > > > > > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > > > > > > > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > > > > > > > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > > > > > > > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > > > > > > > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > > > > > > > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > > > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > > > > > > > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > > > > > > > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > > > > > > > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > > > > > > > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > > > > > > > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > > > > > > > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > > > > > > > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > > > > > > > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > > > > > > > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > > > > > > > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > > > > > > > > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > > > > > > > > > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > > > > > > > > > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > > > > > > > > > Hell, you can't even > > > > > > > > > > say what G is... > > > > > > > > > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > > > > > > > > > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > > > > > > > > > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > > > > > > > > > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > > > > > > > > > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > > > > > > > > > version)? > > > > > > > > > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > > > > > > > > > that occurs... > > > > > > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > > > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > > > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Stowe > > > > > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > > > > > > > I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and > > > > > > > agreement with quantitative data. > > > > > > > > Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler > > > > > > > description. > > > > > > > Let me know when you can start a sentence with "Gravity is". > > > > > > Fine. Gravity is unflat space. > > > > > > There. If simple sentences that are understandable by third graders > > > > > are important to you, there's one with four words and seven > > > > > syllables. > > > > > If by 'space' you are referring to three dimensional space, a > > > > mathematical construct, then your definition is nonsense. > > > > It's not a definition. It's a statement of how gravity works. It is > > > not a definition of gravity, not a definition of space, not a > > > definition of anything. > > > > Space is not a mathematical construct as far as I know. It is > > > physically real > > > Then physical space would be 'flat' if there were no matter. > > > So matter causes physical space to become 'unflat'. > > > Since we are discussing physical space there must be a physical > > process which causes space to go from being 'flat' to 'unflat' because > > of the matter. > > Yes, that's right. > > > > > Physical space is displaced by the matter. > > No, because "displace" means to cause a relocation from one point to > another. When matter *occupies* space, the space does not change its > position from one point to another. If there is space at (0.3 m, 4.6 > m, 1.7 m) and you place a golf ball centered at (0.3 m, 4.6 m, 1.7 m), > then the space that was at (0.3 m, 4.6 m, 1.7 m) does not get > relocated to a different point. It is therefore not displaced. > > > (Note: If you want to describe how matter physically causes physical > > space to change from being 'flat' to 'unflat' then do so) > > When Newton wrote his second law, now written F=ma, about 350 years > ago, he did not say HOW a force causes a mass to accelerate. He just > noted that if there is a force on an object, then it does accelerate. > There are lots of physical laws like this, and that's just fine. What > we have here is the explanation that when there is matter and energy > present, then space does become unflat. > That is not an explanation. That is a statement. How does space become 'unflat'. What occurs physically to the physical space to cause it to become 'unflat'? How does matter physically cause physical space to become 'unflat'? Matter displaces physical space. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > For any physical law in existence, you can always ask "but how does it > do that?" or "but WHY does it do that?" > I am explaining to you how it does that. > > > > You stated, "Gravity is unflat space". Since gravity is a force there > > must be something occurring physically by the physical 'unflat' space > > in order for there to be gravity. The 'unflat' space must be exerting > > a force towards the matter doing the displacing. > > No, a force produces an acceleration, which is represented by a curve > in spacetime. Gravitationally influenced objects travel in *straight > lines* through spacetime, as I already told you. Things that travel in > straight lines are not accelerating, and Newton would be the first to > tell you that something that is not accelerating is not experiencing a > net force. > > So in the modern understanding of gravity, gravity is not a force at > all. That would be the point. In other words, what you were taught in > the 3rd grade about gravity being a force is a *lie*. > > > > > In other words: > > > Gravity is force exerted by physical space displaced by matter. > > > The name most associated with 'physical space' is aether. > > > Gravity is force exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > What type of force is this? Should we just leave it as 'force'? > > Possibly. > > > Possibly more correct: > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > Since matter consists of nuclei it must be each and every nucleus > > which is the matter which physically causes physical space to change > > from being 'flat' to 'unflat'. > > > This 'unflat' space also exists around the plates in the Casimir > > Effect. > > > The force exerted by the physical space displaced by the plates forces > > the plates together. > > > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the > > plates together. > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > 'unflat'. > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > displaced. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated physical space displacement > > wave. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > The C-60 molecule constitutes a very small region of the displacement > > wave. > > > The very small region of the displacement wave consisting of the C-60 > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. > > When you have a theory that has calculations and matches quantitative > measurement, then you might have something. Until then, all you've got > is an explanation for 3rd graders without calculations and without > matching quantitative measurement. And all you have is a meaningless, "Gravity is unflat space". How do you answer the 3rd grader who asks how space becomes unflat? Matter displaces physical space. Matter displaces aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 15:56 On Mar 23, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 3:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 2:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 1:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 9:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:20 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Admit it, PD, you don't have the brain needed to explain anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your only 'talent' is in sidestepping the logical requests of others, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and running-down those who do have a brain. Give your opposing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'theory' of what gravity is, or shut up. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, that sounds like an idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how you think gravity works, PD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make it short and simple so a public school > > > > > > > > > > > > > kid could understand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Space is not flat. Straight lines that start out parallel are > > > > > > > > > > > > not parallel for very long in our universe. They are only parallel on > > > > > > > > > > > > very short scales, such as the very short scales for bridges and > > > > > > > > > > > > buildings, but not at all on the scales between planets. If we > > > > > > > > > > > > actually build a triangle out of straight beams on that time scale, we > > > > > > > > > > > > will find that the angles of the triangle do not add up to 180 > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees, although they get very, very close to that on the scale of > > > > > > > > > > > > bridges and buildings. Euclidean geometry says it's exact, but > > > > > > > > > > > > Euclidean geometry does not give the answers we see in the real > > > > > > > > > > > > universe. If your public school teacher tells you that the angles of a > > > > > > > > > > > > triangle add up to 180 degrees in our universe, the teacher has told > > > > > > > > > > > > you a *lie*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that even things that are traveling in straight lines and > > > > > > > > > > > > initially parallel to each other, with no external forces on them, > > > > > > > > > > > > will soon diverge or converge. We can trace such straight lines with, > > > > > > > > > > > > for example, light beams, which always travel in straight lines. And > > > > > > > > > > > > we can see parallel light rays from distant galaxies bend toward each > > > > > > > > > > > > other and cross, because it leaves a distinctive image just like a > > > > > > > > > > > > lens would, even though there's no material lens between here and > > > > > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes space not flat is matter and energy. Where there is a lot > > > > > > > > > > > > of matter and energy, there the space is less flat. Further away from > > > > > > > > > > > > mass and energy, the space is flatter, but it never gets completely > > > > > > > > > > > > flat before it starts to get close to another clump of matter and > > > > > > > > > > > > energy and starts to get more unflat again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can calculate how unflat space is, if we know all the matter and > > > > > > > > > > > > energy in the region. To do this we use the same G that Newton put in > > > > > > > > > > > > his equations, but we use a different equation instead. And if we know > > > > > > > > > > > > how unflat space is, then we can calculate how fast parallel lines > > > > > > > > > > > > will converge in that space, and therefore we can tell how fast > > > > > > > > > > > > parallel light rays will converge or diverge in that region of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > And if we actually do that calculation, we find that it agrees > > > > > > > > > > > > spectacularly well with how convergent or divergent the light rays > > > > > > > > > > > > actually are. This tell us that our calculation is right, and that the > > > > > > > > > > > > connection between mass and energy and the unflatness of space is > > > > > > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can do this for all sorts of things other than light, too. It gets > > > > > > > > > > > > the right answer for everything we've tried where we have a real clear > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge of the mass and energy in the area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, a public school kid can certainly understand the above. In order > > > > > > > > > > > > to *believe* what he understands, the kid will have to look up some of > > > > > > > > > > > > the experimental measurements, so that he will say, "Sonofagun, it > > > > > > > > > > > > really works that way." There will be some idiots, though, who will > > > > > > > > > > > > understand the above but say "Bullshit. I don't believe it, and you > > > > > > > > > > > > can't make me look at the measurements, so to hell with you." There > > > > > > > > > > > > will be other poor fools who can't even read and understand the above > > > > > > > > > > > > paragraphs that are understandable by a public school student -- > > > > > > > > > > > > there's not much one can do about those poor fools. > > > > > > > > > > > > All of that and you did not answer his question. > > > > > > > > > > > Of course I did. What were you expecting in terms of an explanation? > > > > > > > > > > What fundamental element do you think MUST be present in a physical > > > > > > > > > > explanation that was missing from what I gave? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hell, you can't even > > > > > > > > > > > say what G is... > > > > > > > > > > > G is a numerical conversion factor, empirically determined, whose > > > > > > > > > > value is determined by the choice of units being used. It basically is > > > > > > > > > > a coupling strength, which means given the value of the amount of a > > > > > > > > > > source (mass and energy), what is the amount of the influence (force > > > > > > > > > > in Newton's version of the explanation, curvature in the more modern > > > > > > > > > > version)? > > > > > > > > > > > > Waving one's hand one paths says NOTHING! about how > > > > > > > > > > > that occurs... > > > > > > > > > > > That depends on what you think MUST always be involved in "how that > > > > > > > > > > happens". What do you think has to be there for you to recognize it as > > > > > > > > > > a "how that occurs"? > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Stowe > > > > > > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object. > > > > > > > > > I can back up my grade-schooler description with calculations and > > > > > > > > agreement with quantitative data. > > > > > > > > > Let me know when you can do the same with your grade-schooler > > > > > > > > description. > > > > > > > > Let me know when you can start a sentence with "Gravity is". > > > > > > > Fine. Gravity is unflat space. > > > > > > > There. If simple sentences that are understandable by third graders > > > > > > are important to you, there's one with four words and seven > > > > > > syllables. > > > > > > If by 'space' you are referring to three dimensional space, a > > > > > mathematical construct, then your definition is nonsense. > > > > > It's not a definition. It's a statement of how gravity works. It is > > > > not a definition of gravity, not a definition of space, not a > > > > definition of anything. > > > > > Space is not a mathematical construct as far as I know. It is > > > > physically real > > > > Then physical space would be 'flat' if there were no matter. > > > > So matter causes physical space to become 'unflat'. > > > > Since we are discussing physical space there must be a physical > > > process which causes space to go from being 'flat' to 'unflat' because > > > of the matter. > > > Yes, that's right. > > > > Physical space is displaced by the matter. > > > No, because "displace" means to cause a relocation from one point to > > another. When matter *occupies* space, the space does not change its > > position from one point to another. If there is space at (0.3 m, 4.6 > > m, 1.7 m) and you place a golf ball centered at (0.3 m, 4.6 m, 1.7 m), > > then the space that was at (0.3 m, 4.6 m, 1.7 m) does not get > > relocated to a different point. It is therefore not displaced. > > > > (Note: If you want to describe how matter physically causes physical > > > space to change from being 'flat' to 'unflat' then do so) > > > When Newton wrote his second law, now written F=ma, about 350 years > > ago, he did not say HOW a force causes a mass to accelerate. He just > > noted that if there is a force on an object, then it does accelerate. > > There are lots of physical laws like this, and that's just fine. What > > we have here is the explanation that when there is matter and energy > > present, then space does become unflat. > > That is not an explanation. That is a statement. How does space become > 'unflat'. What occurs physically to the physical space to cause it to > become 'unflat'? How does matter physically cause physical space to > become 'unflat'? > > Matter displaces physical space. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > For any physical law in existence, you can always ask "but how does it > > do that?" or "but WHY does it do that?" > > I am explaining to you how it does that. No, you've made a statement that includes a contradiction. Space does not change location when matter occupies it. Since it does not change location, it is not displaced, by definition of "displace". If you think that a string of words that makes an English sentence but makes no sense should serve as an explanation, then consider this explanation: "Elliptical squares are the reason why mpc is on medication." > > > > > > You stated, "Gravity is unflat space". Since gravity is a force there > > > must be something occurring physically by the physical 'unflat' space > > > in order for there to be gravity. The 'unflat' space must be exerting > > > a force towards the matter doing the displacing. > > > No, a force produces an acceleration, which is represented by a curve > > in spacetime. Gravitationally influenced objects travel in *straight > > lines* through spacetime, as I already told you. Things that travel in > > straight lines are not accelerating, and Newton would be the first to > > tell you that something that is not accelerating is not experiencing a > > net force. > > > So in the modern understanding of gravity, gravity is not a force at > > all. That would be the point. In other words, what you were taught in > > the 3rd grade about gravity being a force is a *lie*. > > > > In other words: > > > > Gravity is force exerted by physical space displaced by matter. > > > > The name most associated with 'physical space' is aether. > > > > Gravity is force exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > What type of force is this? Should we just leave it as 'force'? > > > Possibly. > > > > Possibly more correct: > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > Since matter consists of nuclei it must be each and every nucleus > > > which is the matter which physically causes physical space to change > > > from being 'flat' to 'unflat'. > > > > This 'unflat' space also exists around the plates in the Casimir > > > Effect. > > > > The force exerted by the physical space displaced by the plates forces > > > the plates together. > > > > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the > > > plates together. > > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > > 'unflat'. > > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > > displaced. > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated physical space displacement > > > wave. > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > The C-60 molecule constitutes a very small region of the displacement > > > wave. > > > > The very small region of the displacement wave consisting of the C-60 > > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. > > > When you have a theory that has calculations and matches quantitative > > measurement, then you might have something. Until then, all you've got > > is an explanation for 3rd graders without calculations and without > > matching quantitative measurement. > > And all you have is a meaningless, "Gravity is unflat space". It is no more meaningless than F=ma, or the conservation of energy, or the conservation of momentum, or any other physical law. There is not one physical law ANYWHERE that you can look at and not ask "But why is it that way?" If you find this to be unsatisfying, then I suggest you find another hobby. What you are doing is not science. > > How do you answer the 3rd grader who asks how space becomes unflat? > > Matter displaces physical space. > > Matter displaces aether. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 16:02 On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > When Newton wrote his second law, now written F=ma, about 350 years > > > ago, he did not say HOW a force causes a mass to accelerate. He just > > > noted that if there is a force on an object, then it does accelerate. > > > There are lots of physical laws like this, and that's just fine. What > > > we have here is the explanation that when there is matter and energy > > > present, then space does become unflat. > > > That is not an explanation. That is a statement. How does space become > > 'unflat'. What occurs physically to the physical space to cause it to > > become 'unflat'? How does matter physically cause physical space to > > become 'unflat'? > > > Matter displaces physical space. > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > For any physical law in existence, you can always ask "but how does it > > > do that?" or "but WHY does it do that?" > > > I am explaining to you how it does that. > > No, you've made a statement that includes a contradiction. Space does > not change location when matter occupies it. Since it does not change > location, it is not displaced, by definition of "displace". > Three dimensional space does not change location. Three dimensional space is a mathematical construct. Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. > If you think that a string of words that makes an English sentence but > makes no sense should serve as an explanation, then consider this > explanation: "Elliptical squares are the reason why mpc is on > medication." > > > > > > > You stated, "Gravity is unflat space". Since gravity is a force there > > > > must be something occurring physically by the physical 'unflat' space > > > > in order for there to be gravity. The 'unflat' space must be exerting > > > > a force towards the matter doing the displacing. > > > > No, a force produces an acceleration, which is represented by a curve > > > in spacetime. Gravitationally influenced objects travel in *straight > > > lines* through spacetime, as I already told you. Things that travel in > > > straight lines are not accelerating, and Newton would be the first to > > > tell you that something that is not accelerating is not experiencing a > > > net force. > > > > So in the modern understanding of gravity, gravity is not a force at > > > all. That would be the point. In other words, what you were taught in > > > the 3rd grade about gravity being a force is a *lie*. > > > > > In other words: > > > > > Gravity is force exerted by physical space displaced by matter. > > > > > The name most associated with 'physical space' is aether. > > > > > Gravity is force exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > What type of force is this? Should we just leave it as 'force'? > > > > Possibly. > > > > > Possibly more correct: > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > Since matter consists of nuclei it must be each and every nucleus > > > > which is the matter which physically causes physical space to change > > > > from being 'flat' to 'unflat'. > > > > > This 'unflat' space also exists around the plates in the Casimir > > > > Effect. > > > > > The force exerted by the physical space displaced by the plates forces > > > > the plates together. > > > > > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the > > > > plates together. > > > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > > > 'unflat'. > > > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > > > displaced. > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated physical space displacement > > > > wave. > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > The C-60 molecule constitutes a very small region of the displacement > > > > wave. > > > > > The very small region of the displacement wave consisting of the C-60 > > > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment.. > > > > When you have a theory that has calculations and matches quantitative > > > measurement, then you might have something. Until then, all you've got > > > is an explanation for 3rd graders without calculations and without > > > matching quantitative measurement. > > > And all you have is a meaningless, "Gravity is unflat space". > > It is no more meaningless than F=ma, or the conservation of energy, or > the conservation of momentum, or any other physical law. > There is not one physical law ANYWHERE that you can look at and not > ask "But why is it that way?" > > If you find this to be unsatisfying, then I suggest you find another > hobby. What you are doing is not science. > How do you answer the 3rd grader who asks how space becomes unflat? Matter displaces physical space. Matter displaces aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 16:12 On Mar 23, 3:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > When Newton wrote his second law, now written F=ma, about 350 years > > > > ago, he did not say HOW a force causes a mass to accelerate. He just > > > > noted that if there is a force on an object, then it does accelerate. > > > > There are lots of physical laws like this, and that's just fine. What > > > > we have here is the explanation that when there is matter and energy > > > > present, then space does become unflat. > > > > That is not an explanation. That is a statement. How does space become > > > 'unflat'. What occurs physically to the physical space to cause it to > > > become 'unflat'? How does matter physically cause physical space to > > > become 'unflat'? > > > > Matter displaces physical space. > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > For any physical law in existence, you can always ask "but how does it > > > > do that?" or "but WHY does it do that?" > > > > I am explaining to you how it does that. > > > No, you've made a statement that includes a contradiction. Space does > > not change location when matter occupies it. Since it does not change > > location, it is not displaced, by definition of "displace". > > Three dimensional space does not change location. That's right. That's what I said. Thank you. > Three dimensional > space is a mathematical construct. No, it isn't, and I don't have the foggiest idea where you got that idea. Space is physical, for the reasons I've already described to you, and which you've apparently already forgotten in a few minutes. > > Physical space is displaced by matter. Don't be ridiculous. Now you have to INVENT a distinction between space and physical space so that you can say one is not displaced and the other is. To a physicist and to third graders, space is physical. If you are having trouble with this because it gets in the way of your bonehead statements, then I suggest you ask a third grader. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > > If you think that a string of words that makes an English sentence but > > makes no sense should serve as an explanation, then consider this > > explanation: "Elliptical squares are the reason why mpc is on > > medication." > > > > > > You stated, "Gravity is unflat space". Since gravity is a force there > > > > > must be something occurring physically by the physical 'unflat' space > > > > > in order for there to be gravity. The 'unflat' space must be exerting > > > > > a force towards the matter doing the displacing. > > > > > No, a force produces an acceleration, which is represented by a curve > > > > in spacetime. Gravitationally influenced objects travel in *straight > > > > lines* through spacetime, as I already told you. Things that travel in > > > > straight lines are not accelerating, and Newton would be the first to > > > > tell you that something that is not accelerating is not experiencing a > > > > net force. > > > > > So in the modern understanding of gravity, gravity is not a force at > > > > all. That would be the point. In other words, what you were taught in > > > > the 3rd grade about gravity being a force is a *lie*. > > > > > > In other words: > > > > > > Gravity is force exerted by physical space displaced by matter. > > > > > > The name most associated with 'physical space' is aether. > > > > > > Gravity is force exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > > What type of force is this? Should we just leave it as 'force'? > > > > > Possibly. > > > > > > Possibly more correct: > > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > > Since matter consists of nuclei it must be each and every nucleus > > > > > which is the matter which physically causes physical space to change > > > > > from being 'flat' to 'unflat'. > > > > > > This 'unflat' space also exists around the plates in the Casimir > > > > > Effect. > > > > > > The force exerted by the physical space displaced by the plates forces > > > > > the plates together. > > > > > > The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the > > > > > plates together. > > > > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > > > > 'unflat'. > > > > > > The matter which is a C-60 molecule causes physical space to be > > > > > displaced. > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated physical space displacement > > > > > wave. > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.. > > > > > > The C-60 molecule constitutes a very small region of the displacement > > > > > wave. > > > > > > The very small region of the displacement wave consisting of the C-60 > > > > > molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. > > > > > When you have a theory that has calculations and matches quantitative > > > > measurement, then you might have something. Until then, all you've got > > > > is an explanation for 3rd graders without calculations and without > > > > matching quantitative measurement. > > > > And all you have is a meaningless, "Gravity is unflat space". > > > It is no more meaningless than F=ma, or the conservation of energy, or > > the conservation of momentum, or any other physical law. > > There is not one physical law ANYWHERE that you can look at and not > > ask "But why is it that way?" > > > If you find this to be unsatisfying, then I suggest you find another > > hobby. What you are doing is not science. > > How do you answer the 3rd grader who asks how space becomes unflat? > > Matter displaces physical space. > > Matter displaces aether. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 16:15
On Mar 23, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 3:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > When Newton wrote his second law, now written F=ma, about 350 years > > > > > ago, he did not say HOW a force causes a mass to accelerate. He just > > > > > noted that if there is a force on an object, then it does accelerate. > > > > > There are lots of physical laws like this, and that's just fine. What > > > > > we have here is the explanation that when there is matter and energy > > > > > present, then space does become unflat. > > > > > That is not an explanation. That is a statement. How does space become > > > > 'unflat'. What occurs physically to the physical space to cause it to > > > > become 'unflat'? How does matter physically cause physical space to > > > > become 'unflat'? > > > > > Matter displaces physical space. > > > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. > > > > > > For any physical law in existence, you can always ask "but how does it > > > > > do that?" or "but WHY does it do that?" > > > > > I am explaining to you how it does that. > > > > No, you've made a statement that includes a contradiction. Space does > > > not change location when matter occupies it. Since it does not change > > > location, it is not displaced, by definition of "displace". > > > Three dimensional space does not change location. > > That's right. That's what I said. Thank you. > > > Three dimensional > > space is a mathematical construct. > > No, it isn't, and I don't have the foggiest idea where you got that > idea. Space is physical, for the reasons I've already described to > you, and which you've apparently already forgotten in a few minutes. Physical space is displaced by matter. > Don't be ridiculous. Now you have to INVENT a distinction between > space and physical space so that you can say one is not displaced and > the other is. > > To a physicist and to third graders, space is physical. > If you are having trouble with this because it gets in the way of your > bonehead statements, then I suggest you ask a third grader. > How do you answer the 3rd grader who asks how space becomes unflat? Matter displaces physical space. Matter displaces aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. |