There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: Paul Stowe on 24 Mar 2010 21:38 On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(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? > > > The question was, > > > "Explain how you think gravity works, PD. Make it short and simple so > > a public school kid could understand it." > > > As for what's missing, everything... > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > missing in what I gave? Oh, let's start with the basics, What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > All you described was a mapping > > process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > I disagree. Shall we ask some public school kids? Well my wife works at a elementary school, want to bet the 5th graders will understand those passages above? > > > > 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)? > > > It certainly not a 'numerical constant' at the very least, its a > > physical constant because it is NOT! unitless. > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > simply an error on your part. Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > Those units remain no > > matter what system of measure one chooses. > > This is also wrong. The UNITS are highly dependent on which coordinate > system you choose. You may have been thinking of the term > "dimensions", rather than units, which is what is used in classical > physics and chemistry when one talks about dimensional analysis. Bullshit! Units of length, mass, time does not depend on the systems an inch is still an inch long in milimeters... > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > light is both unitless and dimensionless. Silly... > > But, like I said you > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > equations. > > > > > Waving one's hand on 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"? > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > specific. > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > YOU don't know what you're looking for? That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 08:49 On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(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? > > > > The question was, > > > > "Explain how you think gravity works, PD. Make it short and simple so > > > a public school kid could understand it." > > > > As for what's missing, everything... > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > missing in what I gave? > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I want you to answer mine. There are some fundamental elements that you think MUST be present in a physical explanation, and there are apparently some of those fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the explanation I gave. By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having open questions would not make my explanation not a physical explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical explanation MUST have. > > > > All you described was a mapping > > > process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > > I disagree. Shall we ask some public school kids? > > Well my wife works at a elementary school, want to bet the 5th graders > will understand those passages above? Sure. > > > > > > 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)? > > > > It certainly not a 'numerical constant' at the very least, its a > > > physical constant because it is NOT! unitless. > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > simply an error on your part. > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > > > Those units remain no > > > matter what system of measure one chooses. > > > This is also wrong. The UNITS are highly dependent on which coordinate > > system you choose. You may have been thinking of the term > > "dimensions", rather than units, which is what is used in classical > > physics and chemistry when one talks about dimensional analysis. > > Bullshit! Units of length, mass, time does not depend on the systems > an inch is still an inch long in milimeters... > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > Silly... No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > > equations. > > > > > > Waving one's hand on 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"? > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > specific. > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question.
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 09:01 On Mar 25, 8:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(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? > > > > > The question was, > > > > > "Explain how you think gravity works, PD. Make it short and simple so > > > > a public school kid could understand it." > > > > > As for what's missing, everything... > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > missing in what I gave? > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > want you to answer mine. > There are some fundamental elements that you think MUST be present in > a physical explanation, and there are apparently some of those > fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the explanation > I gave. > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > > All you described was a mapping > > > > process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > > > I disagree. Shall we ask some public school kids? > > > Well my wife works at a elementary school, want to bet the 5th graders > > will understand those passages above? > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > It certainly not a 'numerical constant' at the very least, its a > > > > physical constant because it is NOT! unitless. > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > simply an error on your part. > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > Seto is correct. Once you lose that understanding of the physics of nature, it allows for unexplainable 'physical' behaviors such as: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The above are physically answered: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. A downgraded photon pair are created with opposite angular momentum in order to conserve the original photons momentum - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. > > > > > > > > Those units remain no > > > > matter what system of measure one chooses. > > > > This is also wrong. The UNITS are highly dependent on which coordinate > > > system you choose. You may have been thinking of the term > > > "dimensions", rather than units, which is what is used in classical > > > physics and chemistry when one talks about dimensional analysis. > > > Bullshit! Units of length, mass, time does not depend on the systems > > an inch is still an inch long in milimeters... > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > Silly... > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > > > equations. > > > > > > > Waving one's hand on 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"? > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > specific. > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 09:08 On Mar 25, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 8:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(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? > > > > > > The question was, > > > > > > "Explain how you think gravity works, PD. Make it short and simple so > > > > > a public school kid could understand it." > > > > > > As for what's missing, everything... > > > > > Be specific. What fundamental elements do you think MUST be present in > > > > a physical explanation, and which of those fundamental elements was > > > > missing in what I gave? > > > > Oh, let's start with the basics, > > > > What the heck 'specifically' isn't 'flat'? > > > How can you curve the path of a mass and violate Newton's third law? > > > How can mass or energy curve paths thru a void? > > > I'd be happy to answer your questions (because I can), but first I > > want you to answer mine. > > There are some fundamental elements that you think MUST be present in > > a physical explanation, and there are apparently some of those > > fundamental elements that you believe are missing from the explanation > > I gave. > > > By fundamental elements, I expect you to answer with adjectives and > > nouns, not questions. Having open questions is one thing, but having > > open questions would not make my explanation not a physical > > explanation. A physical explanation won't answer all possible open > > questions. Since you claim my explanation is not a physical one, then > > you owe me some clear accounting of what you think a physical > > explanation MUST have. > > > > > > All you described was a mapping > > > > > process, one that most public school kid would NOT! understand. > > > > > I disagree. Shall we ask some public school kids? > > > > Well my wife works at a elementary school, want to bet the 5th graders > > > will understand those passages above? > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > It certainly not a 'numerical constant' at the very least, its a > > > > > physical constant because it is NOT! unitless. > > > > > Oh, come on. You may have a terminology issue. Numerical constant does > > > > not mean "dimensionless constant" or "unitless constant". This is > > > > simply an error on your part. > > > > Yes, you do have a terminology issue, 'numerical' commonly means > > > relating to a 'number' not a physical entity. See: > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerical > > > Oh, come, come. We run into this problem all the time, when an amateur > > looks at a term that is used in physics and argues with the meaning of > > the term AS USED IN PHYSICS by referring to a dictionary of common > > usage. This is how Seto confuses "physical" and "material", thinking > > that if it ain't material, it ain't physical. > > Seto is correct. No, he's not. Physics has involved more than the material for a few centuries now. Do catch up. > > Once you lose that understanding of the physics of nature, it allows > for unexplainable 'physical' behaviors such as: > > - The future determining the past > - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > change in momentum. > - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move > > The above are physically answered: > > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter forces the plates > together > - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. > When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its > spin. A downgraded photon pair are created with opposite angular > momentum in order to conserve the original photons momentum > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by > matter. > > > > > > Those units remain no > > > > > matter what system of measure one chooses. > > > > > This is also wrong. The UNITS are highly dependent on which coordinate > > > > system you choose. You may have been thinking of the term > > > > "dimensions", rather than units, which is what is used in classical > > > > physics and chemistry when one talks about dimensional analysis. > > > > Bullshit! Units of length, mass, time does not depend on the systems > > > an inch is still an inch long in milimeters... > > > > > However, even in this case one finds that something that has > > > > dimensions in one system of units is dimensionless in another system > > > > of units. For example, in the SI system of units, the speed of light > > > > has dimensions [L]/[T]. However, in "natural units", the speed of > > > > light is both unitless and dimensionless. > > > > Silly... > > > No, it's a simple fact. You can look up natural units if you like. > > > > > > But, like I said you > > > > > cannot say 'what' it is, how those units came to be or even where it > > > > > comes from. You can only say it 'appears' and is needed in the > > > > > equations. > > > > > > > > Waving one's hand on 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"? > > > > > > I happen to agree with Newton on that one... > > > > > And you believe his position is what, exactly? Please be absolutely > > > > specific. > > > > If you can't be specific, perhaps it has not occurred to you that even > > > > YOU don't know what you're looking for? > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > And what are the indispensable elements of a PHYSICAL theory that this > > lacks? You STILL haven't found a way to answer this question. > >
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 09:11
On Mar 24, 3:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > PD: The question was: WHAT IS THE MECHANISM OF GRAVITY? Numerical > values have NOTHING to do with the MECHANISM!!!!! NE I've already told you the mechanism of gravity, in the description above. But the way we know we've landed on the right mechanism of gravity is by NUMERICAL verification with experimental measurements. If the mechanism is right, the ONLY way to verify it in science -- the ONLY WAY -- is to compare a numerical prediction of the theory with a numerical measurement performed in experiment. In order to make a numerical prediction, the theory needs to allow you to calculate them. So, yes, in science, numerical results are indispensable. You cannot do science without them. |