There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 12:20 On Mar 23, 10:17 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Mar 23, 7:33 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 - > > If light rays didn't remain perfectly parallel > for 13 billion light years we wouldn't > be able to bring galaxies into > focus at that range. And in most cases the bending is very, very small, John, so that we still can bring them into focus. But there are also many examples of galaxies that we CANNOT bring into focus precisely because of the issue I just mentioned. In this picture (http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug08/algebra/ lens.jpg), John, the big distributed image is exactly that, the distorted image of a single galaxy. You see, it doesn't even look like one galaxy anymore, and that's because of gravitational lensing. Here is another image (http://www.utahskies.org/image_library/deepsky/ hst/GravitationalLensG2237-0305-HST.jpeg) of an unfocused galaxy, where it appears there are five blobs where there is in fact only ONE galaxy, exactly the kind of distortion that takes place. > In all directions. > Space is perfectly flat everywhere. No, that isn't so, John. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence that it is NOT flat everywhere. But it's not black and white either. You can't say if it were curved, we'd be able to make NO astronomical observations. That's not so. It's *nearly* flat in a lot of directions we look, but it is decidedly not flat in other places and it's pretty easy to find them. Still, the fact that it's only NEARLY flat and not perfectly flat is enough to account for gravity. You do the calculations and you find that everything fits. Some would say the Earth is perfectly round and if it weren't, then people would feel lighter when they got off airplanes in Ecuador. But this is a mistake. The Earth isn't perfectly round, and we've measured that, and if you do the calculations, you find out that the amount it's not round is exactly what you expect (knowing the Earth's rotational rate), and STILL you don't expect people to notice feeling lighter in the tropics. If you don't do the calculations, it's easy to fool yourself into erroneous black-and-white statements that aren't the case at all. PD
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 14:01 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. More correct: Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 14:25 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, as far as physicists are concerned, and as far as normal third graders are concerned. Space is real because you can talk about the amount of space between two material objects where there is no material object between them. I can talk about the amount of space between the two walls of a vacuum vessel, in between which there is nothing, except for space. Third graders understand this. You on the other hand have it fixed in your head that the only things that physically exist are made of material stuff, and so that if there is space between two material objects, it must be filled with material stuff. In other words, you INVENT something so that you can feel more comfortable with your belief that there is only material stuff that exists. This is comparable to believing that the only things that have an identity are things with souls, so that if I identify a rock, the rock must have a soul. It never occurs to you that the presumption about identity demanding soul might just be flat wrong. It never occurs to you that the presumption about physical existence demanding material stuff might just be flat wrong. You do not understand what third graders seem to have no problem with. Why is that? Secondly, in science, whether something is nonsense or not is determined by calculations and agreement with quantitative data. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- in the calculations and agreement with quantitative data that suggests that my description is nonsense. So you must be claiming it's nonsense for another reason entirely. But then that reason has nothing to do with science. > > More correct: > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by a massive object.
From: mpc755 on 23 Mar 2010 15:00 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. Physical space is displaced by the matter. (Note: If you want to describe how matter physically causes physical space to change from being 'flat' to 'unflat' then do so) 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. 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.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 15:41
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. For any physical law in existence, you can always ask "but how does it do that?" or "but WHY does it do 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. |