| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Grav" |
| Date: |
30 Mar 2006 04:30:11 AM |
| Object: |
The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
Let's say I'm floating stationary in deep space light years from any
massive bodies like galaxies or planets. Since I'm not moving in
the 3 dimensions (judging by the unidirectional accelerator
sensor reading zero). Space is steady but time is moving
forward so there is a straight line in the Minkowski 4D graph.
Straight line in the "world line" because I'm only going foward in
the time direction.
Right?
Ok. Second scene. Let's say I'm now sitting on top of a 6 foot
ladder on the ground on earth. What happens to my worldline is
there is no longer a straight line in the 4D Minkowski graph
because the earth is curving spacetime in my vicinity and I'm
now curving in the graph.
Then I jumped from the top of the ladder to the floor. Riemann
wise. What happens is that I'm moving thru a geodesic which
made me feel acceleration which I attribute to gravity.
In the 4D spacetime Non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry, the
earth is curving spacetime, and since I'm in the vicinity of
the earth. I'm moving along with the curve too (remember
time is always moving forward). Only when I'm in free
fall like jumping from the top of the ladder do I take a
geodesic and feeling the fall.
Now when I sit atop the ladder. How come I don't float up. It's
because the earth mass stress energy is registering on
the Riemann's curvature tensor making the fabric of
spacetime curve in certain way and affecting my
mass-energy.
Now. Visualizing it physically. When I sit atop the ladder.
How come again I don't float up. My mass-energy is
being affected by the fabric of spacetime. So this
fabric must be super strong to affect my entire mass
to curve with it. What is the fabric. Where is the fabric?
The fabric must be real enough to affect my body mass.
Don't say the fabric is just a mathematical creation or
imagination. There must be something which guides my
entire body to the earth making me feel gravity.
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
This message is only for those who can convey insight to
others clearly and distinctly like Gregory and Bilge. Not
Bill Hoopa who doesn't know how to explain intuitively.
Tnx.
Grav
.
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 02:02:33 PM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|
| Let's say I'm floating stationary in deep space light years from any
| massive bodies like galaxies or planets. Since I'm not moving in
| the 3 dimensions (judging by the unidirectional accelerator
| sensor reading zero).
You need three unidirectional accelerometers.
http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=2
A three axis accelerometer is about the size of a golfball. Why would
you care about one of its unidirectional sensors?
| Space is steady but time is moving
| forward so there is a straight line in the Minkowski 4D graph.
Space is nothing.
| Straight line in the "world line" because I'm only going foward in
| the time direction.
|
| Right?
|
| Ok. Second scene. Let's say I'm now sitting on top of a 6 foot
| ladder on the ground on earth.
Sounds uncomfortable. Would you like a stool instead?
| What happens to my worldline is
| there is no longer a straight line in the 4D Minkowski graph
| because the earth is curving spacetime in my vicinity and I'm
| now curving in the graph.
I'd say the Earth was revolving around the sun and rotating
on its own axis. The worldline is a year long sinusoid with
a sidereal day sinusoid imposed.
| Then I jumped from the top of the ladder to the floor. Riemann
| wise. What happens is that I'm moving thru a geodesic which
| made me feel acceleration which I attribute to gravity.
You've got that backwards. You are weightless when you jump
and "feel" nothing. You'll feel your feet being accelerated upwards
when they reach the floor. Try it from a 30ft ladder and the upward
acceleration will break your legs. That is when you'll feel acceleration.
Why have you switched from unidirectional accelerator sensors
to how we feel?
Androcles.
|
| In the 4D spacetime Non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry, the
| earth is curving spacetime, and since I'm in the vicinity of
| the earth. I'm moving along with the curve too (remember
| time is always moving forward). Only when I'm in free
| fall like jumping from the top of the ladder do I take a
| geodesic and feeling the fall.
|
| Now when I sit atop the ladder. How come I don't float up. It's
| because the earth mass stress energy is registering on
| the Riemann's curvature tensor making the fabric of
| spacetime curve in certain way and affecting my
| mass-energy.
|
| Now. Visualizing it physically. When I sit atop the ladder.
| How come again I don't float up. My mass-energy is
| being affected by the fabric of spacetime. So this
| fabric must be super strong to affect my entire mass
| to curve with it. What is the fabric. Where is the fabric?
| The fabric must be real enough to affect my body mass.
| Don't say the fabric is just a mathematical creation or
| imagination. There must be something which guides my
| entire body to the earth making me feel gravity.
|
| Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
| entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
|
| Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
| But there must be something that cause my entire body
| to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
| space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
| ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
| to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
| can do all this.
|
| If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
| come no and why not.
|
| This message is only for those who can convey insight to
| others clearly and distinctly like Gregory and Bilge. Not
| Bill Hoopa who doesn't know how to explain intuitively.
|
| Tnx.
|
| Grav
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 07:56:27 AM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Let's say I'm floating stationary in deep space light years from any
massive bodies like galaxies or planets. Since I'm not moving in
the 3 dimensions (judging by the unidirectional accelerator
sensor reading zero).
How do you know this? You can be moving at any velocity or acceleration at
all relative to some coordinate system.
Space is steady but time is moving
forward so there is a straight line in the Minkowski 4D graph.
Straight line in the "world line" because I'm only going foward in
the time direction.
Right?
It is straight because you are considering yourself relative to an inertial
frame. Try another frame and it may not be straight.
Ok. Second scene. Let's say I'm now sitting on top of a 6 foot
ladder on the ground on earth. What happens to my worldline is
there is no longer a straight line in the 4D Minkowski graph
because the earth is curving spacetime in my vicinity and I'm
now curving in the graph.
Then I jumped from the top of the ladder to the floor. Riemann
wise. What happens is that I'm moving thru a geodesic which
made me feel acceleration which I attribute to gravity.
In the 4D spacetime Non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry, the
earth is curving spacetime, and since I'm in the vicinity of
the earth. I'm moving along with the curve too (remember
time is always moving forward). Only when I'm in free
fall like jumping from the top of the ladder do I take a
geodesic and feeling the fall.
Now when I sit atop the ladder. How come I don't float up.
Because of the particular way space-time is curved.
It's
because the earth mass stress energy is registering on
the Riemann's curvature tensor making the fabric of
spacetime curve in certain way and affecting my
mass-energy.
Sure.
Now. Visualizing it physically. When I sit atop the ladder.
How come again I don't float up. My mass-energy is
being affected by the fabric of spacetime. So this
fabric must be super strong to affect my entire mass
to curve with it.
Space-time is not a fabric.
What is the fabric. Where is the fabric?
The fabric must be real enough to affect my body mass.
Don't say the fabric is just a mathematical creation or
imagination. There must be something which guides my
entire body to the earth making me feel gravity.
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
It is.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth.
What causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
GR is not intuitive.
This message is only for those who can convey insight to
others clearly and distinctly like Gregory and Bilge. Not
Bill Hoopa who doesn't know how to explain intuitively.
That because it can't be done in the language you want to use eg space-time
is not a fabric.
Bill
Tnx.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 08:24:14 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Let's say I'm floating stationary in deep space light years from any
massive bodies like galaxies or planets. Since I'm not moving in
the 3 dimensions (judging by the unidirectional accelerator
sensor reading zero).
How do you know this? You can be moving at any velocity or acceleration at
all relative to some coordinate system.
I know you'd mention this. That's why I mentioned the accelerator
sensor thing to make sure I don't move in any direction
because mere acceleration can trigger the sensor. Also
I'm assuming no velocity with respect to nearest galaxy
frame of reference. But then I know it is not possible to
know in deep space from the principle of relativity (who
knows the galaxy and me are both moving together too). Or
let's just say the mass stress energy in my surrounding
is negligible in the example of straight world line.
Space is steady but time is moving
forward so there is a straight line in the Minkowski 4D graph.
Straight line in the "world line" because I'm only going foward in
the time direction.
Right?
It is straight because you are considering yourself relative to an inertial
frame. Try another frame and it may not be straight.
Yes relative to a inertial frame where I am of constant distance
from it.
Ok. Second scene. Let's say I'm now sitting on top of a 6 foot
ladder on the ground on earth. What happens to my worldline is
there is no longer a straight line in the 4D Minkowski graph
because the earth is curving spacetime in my vicinity and I'm
now curving in the graph.
Then I jumped from the top of the ladder to the floor. Riemann
wise. What happens is that I'm moving thru a geodesic which
made me feel acceleration which I attribute to gravity.
In the 4D spacetime Non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry, the
earth is curving spacetime, and since I'm in the vicinity of
the earth. I'm moving along with the curve too (remember
time is always moving forward). Only when I'm in free
fall like jumping from the top of the ladder do I take a
geodesic and feeling the fall.
Now when I sit atop the ladder. How come I don't float up.
Because of the particular way space-time is curved.
Physical mechanism is what I want to know.
It's
because the earth mass stress energy is registering on
the Riemann's curvature tensor making the fabric of
spacetime curve in certain way and affecting my
mass-energy.
Sure.
Now. Visualizing it physically. When I sit atop the ladder.
How come again I don't float up. My mass-energy is
being affected by the fabric of spacetime. So this
fabric must be super strong to affect my entire mass
to curve with it.
Space-time is not a fabric.
Then what is the fabric of space/time. Do you believe in
Einstein Gravitational Ether?
What is the fabric. Where is the fabric?
The fabric must be real enough to affect my body mass.
Don't say the fabric is just a mathematical creation or
imagination. There must be something which guides my
entire body to the earth making me feel gravity.
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
It is.
Gee. But you need to explain the physical mechanism.
If there is a Relativistic Ether which can coordinate all
these. Then it's understandable.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth.
What causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
Geometry. But note we are talking of gravity and it's
more than that. What's the physical mechanism to make my
entire body and mass get to the earth and not up. What's
the physical correlate of the curvature of spacetime. Come
on.
Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
GR is not intuitive.
This message is only for those who can convey insight to
others clearly and distinctly like Gregory and Bilge. Not
Bill Hoopa who doesn't know how to explain intuitively.
That because it can't be done in the language you want to use eg space-time
is not a fabric.
Bill
Ludwik Kostro wrote a book called "Einstein and the Ether".
It's quoted:
"When we use only the expression "space-time continuum",
its materiality is not indicated in any way. We therefore
need a special word to express it. The traditional word
"ether" is ideally suited to this purpose.
The expression "new ether" and "relativistic ether" are
particularly useful from the physical point of view because
they indicate immediately that in the Theory of Relativity,
space-time is of a material nature. It is well to recall the
reasons why Einstein attributed material properties to
the space-time continuum:
1. The space-time continuum participates, in a real and
active way, in physical becoming. E.g. the gravitational
potentials described mathematically by the Guv
components of the metrical tensor g determine the
inertio-gravitational behavior of test particles.
2. Space-time is a field, and there is no quantitative
difference between field and matter. Field is characterized
by a certain distribution of energy, and therefore,
materiality."
Grav
Tnx.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 05:53:07 PM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143728654.900929.261960@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Let's say I'm floating stationary in deep space light years from any
massive bodies like galaxies or planets. Since I'm not moving in
the 3 dimensions (judging by the unidirectional accelerator
sensor reading zero).
How do you know this? You can be moving at any velocity or acceleration
at
all relative to some coordinate system.
I know you'd mention this. That's why I mentioned the accelerator
sensor thing to make sure I don't move in any direction
because mere acceleration can trigger the sensor. Also
I'm assuming no velocity with respect to nearest galaxy
frame of reference. But then I know it is not possible to
know in deep space from the principle of relativity (who
knows the galaxy and me are both moving together too). Or
let's just say the mass stress energy in my surrounding
is negligible in the example of straight world line.
Space is steady but time is moving
forward so there is a straight line in the Minkowski 4D graph.
Straight line in the "world line" because I'm only going foward in
the time direction.
Right?
It is straight because you are considering yourself relative to an
inertial
frame. Try another frame and it may not be straight.
Yes relative to a inertial frame where I am of constant distance
from it.
Ok. Second scene. Let's say I'm now sitting on top of a 6 foot
ladder on the ground on earth. What happens to my worldline is
there is no longer a straight line in the 4D Minkowski graph
because the earth is curving spacetime in my vicinity and I'm
now curving in the graph.
Then I jumped from the top of the ladder to the floor. Riemann
wise. What happens is that I'm moving thru a geodesic which
made me feel acceleration which I attribute to gravity.
In the 4D spacetime Non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry, the
earth is curving spacetime, and since I'm in the vicinity of
the earth. I'm moving along with the curve too (remember
time is always moving forward). Only when I'm in free
fall like jumping from the top of the ladder do I take a
geodesic and feeling the fall.
Now when I sit atop the ladder. How come I don't float up.
Because of the particular way space-time is curved.
Physical mechanism is what I want to know.
Physical mechanism is what you are confused about. What is the physical
mechanism for Pythagerous theorem?
It's
because the earth mass stress energy is registering on
the Riemann's curvature tensor making the fabric of
spacetime curve in certain way and affecting my
mass-energy.
Sure.
Now. Visualizing it physically. When I sit atop the ladder.
How come again I don't float up. My mass-energy is
being affected by the fabric of spacetime. So this
fabric must be super strong to affect my entire mass
to curve with it.
Space-time is not a fabric.
Then what is the fabric of space/time. Do you believe in
Einstein Gravitational Ether?
As defined by Einstein - yes. But that is not its current usage in
physics - in that usage - no.
What is the fabric. Where is the fabric?
The fabric must be real enough to affect my body mass.
Don't say the fabric is just a mathematical creation or
imagination. There must be something which guides my
entire body to the earth making me feel gravity.
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
It is.
Gee. But you need to explain the physical mechanism.
If there is a Relativistic Ether which can coordinate all
these. Then it's understandable.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth.
What causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
Geometry.
Correct. But geometry is a math theory - how can it affect 'reality'?
But note we are talking of gravity and it's
more than that.
How do you know that?
What's the physical mechanism to make my
entire body and mass get to the earth and not up.
The same physical mechanism that causes a triangle to obey Pythagoras
What's
the physical correlate of the curvature of spacetime.
The same physical correlate that makes a right triangles obey Pythagoras.
Come on, surely the abstract entities that exist in our mind from a math
theory can not be reality; surely it can not make triangles obey
Pythagoras - their must be a mechanism - what is it?
Come on.
Yes indeed - explain to me how how a math theory can cause a real triangle
to obey Pythagoras.
Bill
Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
GR is not intuitive.
This message is only for those who can convey insight to
others clearly and distinctly like Gregory and Bilge. Not
Bill Hoopa who doesn't know how to explain intuitively.
That because it can't be done in the language you want to use eg
space-time
is not a fabric.
Bill
Ludwik Kostro wrote a book called "Einstein and the Ether".
It's quoted:
"When we use only the expression "space-time continuum",
its materiality is not indicated in any way. We therefore
need a special word to express it. The traditional word
"ether" is ideally suited to this purpose.
The expression "new ether" and "relativistic ether" are
particularly useful from the physical point of view because
they indicate immediately that in the Theory of Relativity,
space-time is of a material nature. It is well to recall the
reasons why Einstein attributed material properties to
the space-time continuum:
1. The space-time continuum participates, in a real and
active way, in physical becoming. E.g. the gravitational
potentials described mathematically by the Guv
components of the metrical tensor g determine the
inertio-gravitational behavior of test particles.
2. Space-time is a field, and there is no quantitative
difference between field and matter. Field is characterized
by a certain distribution of energy, and therefore,
materiality."
Grav
Tnx.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 06:02:50 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
Now when I sit atop the ladder. How come I don't float up.
Because of the particular way space-time is curved.
Physical mechanism is what I want to know.
Physical mechanism is what you are confused about. What is the physical
mechanism for Pythagerous theorem?
I've already answered this in the other reply. Again.
It's all spatial. But in General Relativity. You are adding time.
As time moves, there is an evolving relationship in the
Minkowski graph such that our bodies are guided to the
earth as time evolves. Without time, there is no GR. So
that's the difference. Pythagoras Theorem is entirely spatial.
GR is an evolving relationship. The primary question is, what
physically bring our bodies to earth as described by the EFE.
Dirk said scientists don't know the physical mechanism.
But you insist its in the geometry or sorta. Are you tricking
me or something. Why don't you just say that scientists
don't know and period. It's settled.
Grav
It's
because the earth mass stress energy is registering on
the Riemann's curvature tensor making the fabric of
spacetime curve in certain way and affecting my
mass-energy.
Sure.
Now. Visualizing it physically. When I sit atop the ladder.
How come again I don't float up. My mass-energy is
being affected by the fabric of spacetime. So this
fabric must be super strong to affect my entire mass
to curve with it.
Space-time is not a fabric.
Then what is the fabric of space/time. Do you believe in
Einstein Gravitational Ether?
As defined by Einstein - yes. But that is not its current usage in
physics - in that usage - no.
What is the fabric. Where is the fabric?
The fabric must be real enough to affect my body mass.
Don't say the fabric is just a mathematical creation or
imagination. There must be something which guides my
entire body to the earth making me feel gravity.
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
It is.
Gee. But you need to explain the physical mechanism.
If there is a Relativistic Ether which can coordinate all
these. Then it's understandable.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth.
What causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
Geometry.
Correct. But geometry is a math theory - how can it affect 'reality'?
But note we are talking of gravity and it's
more than that.
How do you know that?
What's the physical mechanism to make my
entire body and mass get to the earth and not up.
The same physical mechanism that causes a triangle to obey Pythagoras
What's
the physical correlate of the curvature of spacetime.
The same physical correlate that makes a right triangles obey Pythagoras.
Come on, surely the abstract entities that exist in our mind from a math
theory can not be reality; surely it can not make triangles obey
Pythagoras - their must be a mechanism - what is it?
Come on.
Yes indeed - explain to me how how a math theory can cause a real triangle
to obey Pythagoras.
Bill
Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
GR is not intuitive.
This message is only for those who can convey insight to
others clearly and distinctly like Gregory and Bilge. Not
Bill Hoopa who doesn't know how to explain intuitively.
That because it can't be done in the language you want to use eg
space-time
is not a fabric.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 04:51:34 AM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 06:13:42 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
We should extend science to explaining why too. Who
knows. When we know why. We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 08:02:05 AM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
What physically causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
We should extend science to explaining why too.
It already does. But every explanation, every single one, assumes some
things from which others follow. What is assumed can never be explained
within the theory that assumes them.
Who knows. When we know why.
We already know why within the paradigm of our best theory - GR. The why is
no prior geometry.
We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Misunderstanding what science is about will not help.
Bill
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 04:19:44 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
What physically causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
As I said in the other message, Geometry.
We should extend science to explaining why too.
It already does. But every explanation, every single one, assumes some
things from which others follow. What is assumed can never be explained
within the theory that assumes them.
Who knows. When we know why.
We already know why within the paradigm of our best theory - GR. The why is
no prior geometry.
Pls elaborate what exactly you mean by "no prior geometry".
Are you referring to the Equivalence Principle which Einstein
intuited as the guiding principle in General Relativity?
We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Misunderstanding what science is about will not help.
Well. If GR is just a model. What if there would come a
better model that can even be capable of shielding
gravity? GR model is such that there is no exotic
mass-energy than can cause negative curvature so
anti-gravity is not possible (although I have heard
of Casimir negative energy but that's for time alteration).
But GR is just a model. What if the model is causing
a limitation of the possibilities. I'm not an anti-gravity
nut. Just mentioning it for the sake of pointing how
GR model may be limiting some possibilities. While
it can explain black holes, gravitational lensing,
frame dragging, gravitatational waves, etc. As long
as we don't know how space exactly pull those stunts
physically (we only know EFE can correctly model
the dynamics of objects and mass-energy, curvature) .
We can't say that GR is the last word. Agree?
Therefore since it's not the last word. You can't conclude
that shielding gravity is impossible, because the model
may be limiting the possibilities. Again I'm not an
anti-gravity nut or interested in it, just pointing it as
an example.
Grav
Bill
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 05:41:53 PM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143757184.432193.300190@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
What physically causes right triangles to obey Pythagoras?
As I said in the other message, Geometry.
We should extend science to explaining why too.
It already does. But every explanation, every single one, assumes some
things from which others follow. What is assumed can never be explained
within the theory that assumes them.
Who knows. When we know why.
We already know why within the paradigm of our best theory - GR. The why
is
no prior geometry.
Pls elaborate what exactly you mean by "no prior geometry".
Are you referring to the Equivalence Principle which Einstein
intuited as the guiding principle in General Relativity?
Minkowski space is a fixed geometry. Why should nature single this out as
special? Answering that it shouldn't leads to the idea of no prior
geometry - ie we should use a formalism that encompasses all reasonable
geometries in the same framework ie Riemanian geometry. Without going into
the detail once you assume that and certain other well known physical
principles such as the PLA GR more or less follows.
We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Misunderstanding what science is about will not help.
Well. If GR is just a model.
It is.
What if there would come a
better model that can even be capable of shielding
gravity?
Then propose it.
GR model is such that there is no exotic
mass-energy than can cause negative curvature so
anti-gravity is not possible (although I have heard
of Casimir negative energy but that's for time alteration).
But GR is just a model. What if the model is causing
a limitation of the possibilities. I'm not an anti-gravity
nut. Just mentioning it for the sake of pointing how
GR model may be limiting some possibilities. While
it can explain black holes, gravitational lensing,
frame dragging, gravitatational waves, etc. As long
as we don't know how space exactly pull those stunts
physically (we only know EFE can correctly model
the dynamics of objects and mass-energy, curvature) .
We can't say that GR is the last word. Agree?
Therefore since it's not the last word. You can't conclude
that shielding gravity is impossible, because the model
may be limiting the possibilities. Again I'm not an
anti-gravity nut or interested in it, just pointing it as
an example.
Propose an actual model and test it.
Bill
Grav
Bill
Grav
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 05:20:38 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity Grav <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well. If GR is just a model. What if there would come a
better model that can even be capable of shielding
gravity?
What do you mean by a better model? If the model
predicts something that is impossible, then it
is not a good model.
GR model is such that there is no exotic
mass-energy than can cause negative curvature so
anti-gravity is not possible (although I have heard
of Casimir negative energy but that's for time alteration).
But GR is just a model. What if the model is causing
a limitation of the possibilities.
The model cannot limit the possibilities. If anti-gravity
is possible, then GR is wrong, or in need of serious
modification. However only an experiment can demonstrate
anti-gravity. If (and most likely when) experimental
evidence that seriously conflicts with GR is found,
a new theory will be found. However this new theory
will make very similar predictions to GR for all
of the experiments that have been done so far.
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 07:33:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity Grav <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well. If GR is just a model. What if there would come a
better model that can even be capable of shielding
gravity?
What do you mean by a better model? If the model
predicts something that is impossible, then it
is not a good model.
GR model is such that there is no exotic
mass-energy than can cause negative curvature so
anti-gravity is not possible (although I have heard
of Casimir negative energy but that's for time alteration).
But GR is just a model. What if the model is causing
a limitation of the possibilities.
The model cannot limit the possibilities. If anti-gravity
is possible, then GR is wrong, or in need of serious
modification. However only an experiment can demonstrate
anti-gravity. If (and most likely when) experimental
evidence that seriously conflicts with GR is found,
a new theory will be found. However this new theory
will make very similar predictions to GR for all
of the experiments that have been done so far.
Stephen
I'm holding my breath on this:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
The gravitomagnetic effect is quoted "one hundred million
trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts".
Could the dynamics of the Gravitational Ether be evolved?
Hope it can be duplicated elsewhere or refuted...
Grav
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
31 Mar 2006 12:25:51 AM |
|
|
Hi Stephen, You wrote:
If anti-gravity is possible, then GR is wrong,
or in need of serious modification.
There's more negative energy, a.k.a. anti-gravity,
then there is positive energy ! !
As I told Grav earlier today...
General_Relativity, more specifically, GR's lambda,
tells us where gravity came from... and where it's going.
The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_,
a.k.a. General_Relativity's lambda, a.k.a. GR's cosmological _Constant_,
a.k.a. dark energy, a.k.a. negative pressure... etc.
So... there might be more antiparticles than particles in the cosmos.
Although many are trying to discover if antimatter has negative mass,
the results so far are inconclusive because gravity is too weak to measure
at such scales, where charge plays a much more dominant role.
SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22,
and WMAP's March 17th data are confirming GR's cosmological _Constant_,
explaining the very _Source_ of gravity... and it's future,
i.e. it's just leftover density... the cosmos has just always been dissipating.
Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity,
I posit that things are actually traveling that fast there,
but in a cyclical, -- hence accelerated --, fashion, and in more dimensions.
SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_,
within a 10 percent error, for at least the last 12 billion years,
and WMAP defines lambda's value to within a 5 percent error.
WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent
with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --,
not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos
had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction !
So...
I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy.
Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time,
the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy.
The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy,
can be imagined as a 2D hyperbola
or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange.
As Hawking keeps saying... the cosmos has no beginning or end.
Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, i.e. Space_Time,
-- not 3D Space or 5D Space_Time_Entropy, mind you --,
is flat, like a straight 2D line.
The key to understanding cosmology or particle physics is this:
Nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown,
given _Today_'s best observations/theories.
For example:
The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori;
but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown.
GR tells us that time and entropy are intrinsically _Spatial_,
it's only unknowns that make them seem directional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
31 Mar 2006 06:36:35 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_30_pKUS@Cotse.NET...
Hi Stephen, You wrote:
Hi Jeff.
You have posted this nonsense more times than anything else. Do you feel the
need to say this and nothing more?
It is all crap and has less science than my shoes.
If anti-gravity is possible, then GR is wrong,
or in need of serious modification.
There's more negative energy, a.k.a. anti-gravity,
then there is positive energy ! !
Well....
This is a good start.
As I told Grav earlier today...
General_Relativity, more specifically, GR's lambda,
tells us where gravity came from... and where it's going.
The net mass-energy of the cosmos is known to be _Negative_,
a.k.a. General_Relativity's lambda, a.k.a. GR's cosmological _Constant_,
a.k.a. dark energy, a.k.a. negative pressure... etc.
Your use of language is shockingly bad as far as "science" is concerned.
Your understanding of the cosmological data and evidence is abysmall.
So... there might be more antiparticles than particles in the cosmos.
Really? Do you know what the effects of this would be and how we could test
for it?
Although many are trying to discover if antimatter has negative mass,
the results so far are inconclusive because gravity is too weak to measure
at such scales, where charge plays a much more dominant role.
You are truly straying off the deep end now. "Antimatter has negative mass"
is an interesting statement. Do you know anything about research into anti-
particles? When you say gravity is too weak to measure, what has that got to
do with the mass of anti-matter and what scales do you think we are working
on?
Gravity is the weakest force in the universe.
<snip remaining wordage - it has been posted so many times I heard its going
to get its own newsgroup>
So...
I posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy.
Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time,
the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy.
Here we go again. Just as I thought you were going to discuss something
scientific you insist on producing this verbal vomit of yours.
The CMBR shows the universe has three spatial dimensions.
Gravity shows the universe has three spatial dimensions.
You have a few choices here.
1 - learn from your errors and stop posting this nonsense. Become interested
in "real" science and become a worthwhile member of a newsgroup.
2 - realise you are wrong and stop posting in shame.
3 - decide you are correct and post a refutation for the 3D theory which is
consistent with the observed data yet makes testable predictions. Feel all
happy at having produced some science and become a worthwhile member of this
newsgroup.
4 - ignore the evidence proving your theory wrong, insult me every time I
point it out to you (thinking it makes you "win" the argument) and
continually repost this nonsense ten to fifteen times a day. Never post
anything worthwhile and revel in your status as a crackpot troll.
I hope you go for options 1-3 but I suspect you will choose option 4.
GR tells us that time and entropy are intrinsically _Spatial_,
it's only unknowns that make them seem directional.
Where does it say this? Can you show me a reference to this comment in GR
please?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
31 Mar 2006 01:39:00 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
[snip]
Hey Relfie, *****. Your constant posting of your physics word salads
is getting very, very tiresome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Eric_Gisse, Being so very unemployed... |
31 Mar 2006 01:26:34 PM |
|
|
Hi Eric_Gisse, Being so very unemployed, your life devoid of content,
You wrote:
Hey Relfie, *****. Your constant posting of your physics word salads
is getting very, very tiresome.
How can I ***** ?
I'm not following you around, replying to your every post.
Why don't you ***** ? Find something better to do, won't ya ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Eric_Gisse, Being so very unemployed... |
31 Mar 2006 01:48:17 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Eric_Gisse, Being so very unemployed, your life devoid of content,
You wrote:
Hey Relfie, *****. Your constant posting of your physics word salads
is getting very, very tiresome.
How can I ***** ?
I'm not following you around, replying to your every post.
Why don't you ***** ? Find something better to do, won't ya ?
You will be mercilessly harassed until you stop posting to sci.physics
and sci.physics.relativity.
Since C.O.L.A finally got you to leave, you feel you have to come here.
Well, you don't. Make yourself a blog on livejournal and your drivel
will be seen by a larger audience if it is actually worth anything.
Everyone wins! We don't have to see your *****, and well...who cares
what you think?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 07:06:15 AM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
We don't know.
Try a non-science newsgroup. I'm sure they know.
Dirk Vdm
We should extend science to explaining why too. Who
knows. When we know why. We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 07:35:43 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
We don't know.
Try a non-science newsgroup. I'm sure they know.
Dirk Vdm
We should extend science to explaining why too. Who
knows. When we know why. We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Grav
Maybe only you don't know. It seems Bill and Bilge knew.
They stated that by understanding the geometry, the answer
would come out and one can understand why it correlates
to reality. So I spent the whole evening in library reviewing
for all the available books about GR and the above is what
I came up. At the end of the day. I learned Einstein himself
believe in the so called "Gravitational Ether". Don't you guys
believe in this too? Bilge?
Einstein himself said:
"[...] we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical
physics, i.e., a continuum which is equipped with physical
properties; for the general theory, whose basic points
of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes
direct distant action. But every contiguous action theory
presumes continuous fields, and there also the existence
of an "ether"."
"We may still use the word ether but only to express the
physical properties of space. The word ether has changed
its meaning many times in the development of science.
At the moment, it is no longer stands for a medium built
up of particles. It's story, by no means finished, is
continued by the relativity theory."
"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot
be imagined without ether".
Note Einstein only disbelieved in the aether from 1905-1917.
After that. He believe it and interchanging the word
ether with spacetime many times.
So Einstein himself believed in the Relativistic or
Gravitational Ether. But I'm puzzled how come
physicists (such as Bilge) don't believed them nowadays.
When I'm sitting on top of the ladder, the Gravitational
Ether can interact with my mass-energy and guiding
its position in space. If Bilge will agree to it. I'll be
satisfied. I just want to gain that one crucial insight
on the physical mechanism of General Relativity.
Give me that and I'm outta here and you'd be happy.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 08:18:35 AM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143725743.468393.254360@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
We don't know.
Try a non-science newsgroup. I'm sure they know.
Dirk Vdm
We should extend science to explaining why too. Who
knows. When we know why. We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Grav
Maybe only you don't know. It seems Bill and Bilge knew.
They stated that by understanding the geometry, the answer
would come out and one can understand why it correlates
to reality.
That is not what I said. I said you will be able to understand GR (which is
a theory) if you understood math better. Why theories exist that have
experimental support is a deep mystery. But the mystery not only applies to
GR - it apples to good old Euclidian geometry as well. When faced with
such issues simply think back to it and ask how it solves the issue.
So I spent the whole evening in library reviewing
for all the available books about GR and the above is what
I came up. At the end of the day. I learned Einstein himself
believe in the so called "Gravitational Ether". Don't you guys
believe in this too? Bilge?
Einstein himself said:
"[...] we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical
physics, i.e., a continuum which is equipped with physical
properties; for the general theory, whose basic points
of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes
direct distant action. But every contiguous action theory
presumes continuous fields, and there also the existence
of an "ether"."
"We may still use the word ether but only to express the
physical properties of space. The word ether has changed
its meaning many times in the development of science.
At the moment, it is no longer stands for a medium built
up of particles. It's story, by no means finished, is
continued by the relativity theory."
"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot
be imagined without ether".
Note Einstein only disbelieved in the aether from 1905-1917.
After that. He believe it and interchanging the word
ether with spacetime many times.
So Einstein himself believed in the Relativistic or
Gravitational Ether.
Not correct -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some injudicious
comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said to ascribe
physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense, to involve a
kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had
been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his
remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other
ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory". Here's a
typical claim of this sort: 'the aether is restored in General Relativity
see Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905
rejection of the aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a
dynamical object (with shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence an
aether. This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really
meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was
incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific
"preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the
field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean
geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries),
much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there
is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational waves
running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy, which
gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether" in the very
weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum (namely
nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties of "space" in a
3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into gtr. In modern quantum
field theories, of course, there are still more "things which are there" in
a vacuum, but again these do not constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth
century sense in which this word was used as a technical term. Einstein was
criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the classical notion of the
aether was such nonsense that people like Maxwell should have known better.
He was saying that the problem with the classical aether was not
ontological, merely that it is inconsistent with observation and experiment;
hence the need for str'
But I'm puzzled how come
physicists (such as Bilge) don't believed them nowadays.
Because it never has been detected and theories do not require it.
When I'm sitting on top of the ladder, the Gravitational
Ether can interact with my mass-energy and guiding
its position in space.
Read the link above - current evidence does not require a gravitational
aether nor did Einstein believe it was required.
Bill
If Bilge will agree to it. I'll be
satisfied. I just want to gain that one crucial insight
on the physical mechanism of General Relativity.
Give me that and I'm outta here and you'd be happy.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 08:36:35 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143725743.468393.254360@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
We don't know.
Try a non-science newsgroup. I'm sure they know.
Dirk Vdm
We should extend science to explaining why too. Who
knows. When we know why. We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Grav
Maybe only you don't know. It seems Bill and Bilge knew.
They stated that by understanding the geometry, the answer
would come out and one can understand why it correlates
to reality.
That is not what I said. I said you will be able to understand GR (which is
a theory) if you understood math better. Why theories exist that have
experimental support is a deep mystery. But the mystery not only applies to
GR - it apples to good old Euclidian geometry as well. When faced with
such issues simply think back to it and ask how it solves the issue.
So I spent the whole evening in library reviewing
for all the available books about GR and the above is what
I came up. At the end of the day. I learned Einstein himself
believe in the so called "Gravitational Ether". Don't you guys
believe in this too? Bilge?
Einstein himself said:
"[...] we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical
physics, i.e., a continuum which is equipped with physical
properties; for the general theory, whose basic points
of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes
direct distant action. But every contiguous action theory
presumes continuous fields, and there also the existence
of an "ether"."
"We may still use the word ether but only to express the
physical properties of space. The word ether has changed
its meaning many times in the development of science.
At the moment, it is no longer stands for a medium built
up of particles. It's story, by no means finished, is
continued by the relativity theory."
"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot
be imagined without ether".
Note Einstein only disbelieved in the aether from 1905-1917.
After that. He believe it and interchanging the word
ether with spacetime many times.
So Einstein himself believed in the Relativistic or
Gravitational Ether.
Not correct -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some injudicious
comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said to ascribe
physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense, to involve a
kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had
been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his
remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other
ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory". Here's a
typical claim of this sort: 'the aether is restored in General Relativity
see Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905
rejection of the aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a
dynamical object (with shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence an
aether. This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really
meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was
incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific
"preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the
field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean
geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries),
much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there
is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational waves
running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy, which
gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether" in the very
weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum (namely
nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties of "space" in a
3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into gtr. In modern quantum
field theories, of course, there are still more "things which are there" in
a vacuum, but again these do not constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth
century sense in which this word was used as a technical term. Einstein was
criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the classical notion of the
aether was such nonsense that people like Maxwell should have known better.
He was saying that the problem with the classical aether was not
ontological, merely that it is inconsistent with observation and experiment;
hence the need for str'
That's not entirely accurate. I read Ludwik Kostro book
"Einstein and the Ether" in the libary in one sitting last
night. What Einstein is saying is that STR can't have
any ether of the maxwell kind to avoid a preferred frame
of reference that can violate the principle of relativity.
So the new ether he proposed can't have particles that
can be tracked in time and place. So the Einstein ether
is nothing but space-time itself which can give it a more
physical sounding nature. Again quoting Kostro (there
are more Einstein quotes in the book which I borrowed):
"When we use only the expression "space-time continuum",
its materiality is not indicated in any way. We therefore
need a special word to express it. The traditional word
"ether" is ideally suited to this purpose.
The expression "new ether" and "relativistic ether" are
particularly useful from the physical point of view because
they indicate immediately that in the Theory of Relativity,
space-time is of a material nature. It is well to recall the
reasons why Einstein attributed material properties to
the space-time continuum:
1. The space-time continuum participates, in a real and
active way, in physical becoming. E.g. the gravitational
potentials described mathematically by the Guv
components of the metrical tensor g determine the
inertio-gravitational behavior of test particles.
2. Space-time is a field, and there is no quantitative
difference between field and matter. Field is characterized
by a certain distribution of energy, and therefore,
materiality."
But I'm puzzled how come
physicists (such as Bilge) don't believed them nowadays.
Because it never has been detected and theories do not require it.
What if it is possible to program space itself which can
affect material properties? Some experiments can done
it.
When I'm sitting on top of the ladder, the Gravitational
Ether can interact with my mass-energy and guiding
its position in space.
Read the link above - current evidence does not require a gravitational
aether nor did Einstein believe it was required.
Because Einstein doesn't know of the extra evidence.
But let's talk of purely GR. An Einstein Ether is the
only one which can coordinate my mass energy body to
gravitate to earth with the Einstein Field Equations describing
how the Einstein Ether should behave interlinking the earth
and my body mass. Why not??
Grav
Bill
If Bilge will agree to it. I'll be
satisfied. I just want to gain that one crucial insight
on the physical mechanism of General Relativity.
Give me that and I'm outta here and you'd be happy.
Grav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The Minkowski Ladder (visualizing GR) |
30 Mar 2006 05:15:26 PM |
|
|
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143729394.934158.49900@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143725743.468393.254360@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143720822.740345.52510@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Grav" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143714611.556864.272530@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Bottomline is. The fabric of spacetime must be a real
entity enough to cause all this gravity trick.
Yet the GR gurus would likely say that its just geometry.
But there must be something that cause my entire body
to be attracted to earth. Remember when I'm in deep
space. I'm only moving in time. When the earth and
ladder say suddenly materialize in front of me. I got stuck
to the ladder. So there should be something in space that
can do all this.
If you'd say no. Pls. enlighten me using intuitive words how
come no and why not.
If you say there should be something in space that can do all
this, that doesn't imply there *is* something that can do all
this.
Nature doesn't care about what you think it should do.
Physicists deal with the model of gravity. Not with the cause.
If you really want to know the real cause, turn to religion or
new-age or intelligent design or whatever you fancy.
Dirk Vdm
If we are dealing with knowing the properties of some particle
inside the atom. It's understandable that a model without
physical cause can suffice. But we are dealing with something
as concrete as gravity. When you fall from the bed to the floor.
This is something solid.
Come on, guys, there must be something. I described in
the geometry aspect. Now what's physically causing my body
to be stucked to this chair typing this.
We don't know.
Try a non-science newsgroup. I'm sure they know.
Dirk Vdm
We should extend science to explaining why too. Who
knows. When we know why. We may even learn how
to shield gravity and take the monopoly out of Boieng.
Grav
Maybe only you don't know. It seems Bill and Bilge knew.
They stated that by understanding the geometry, the answer
would come out and one can understand why it correlates
to reality.
That is not what I said. I said you will be able to understand GR (which
is
a theory) if you understood math better. Why theories exist that have
experimental support is a deep mystery. But the mystery not only applies
to
GR - it apples to good old Euclidian geometry as well. When faced with
such issues simply think back to it and ask how it solves the issue.
So I spent the whole evening in library reviewing
for all the available books about GR and the above is what
I came up. At the end of the day. I learned Einstein himself
believe in the so called "Gravitational Ether". Don't you guys
believe in this too? Bilge?
Einstein himself said:
"[...] we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical
physics, i.e., a continuum which is equipped with physical
properties; for the general theory, whose basic points
of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes
direct distant action. But every contiguous action theory
presumes continuous fields, and there also the existence
of an "ether"."
"We may still use the word ether but only to express the
physical properties of space. The word ether has changed
its meaning many times in the development of science.
At the moment, it is no longer stands for a medium built
up of particles. It's story, by no means finished, is
continued by the relativity theory."
"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot
be imagined without ether".
Note Einstein only disbelieved in the aether from 1905-1917.
After that. He believe it and interchanging the word
ether with spacetime many times.
So Einstein himself believed in the Relativistic or
Gravitational Ether.
Not correct -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious
comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said to ascribe
physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense, to involve a
kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had
been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his
remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other
ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory". Here's
a
typical claim of this sort: 'the aether is restored in General Relativity
see Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905
rejection of the aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a
dynamical object (with shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence
an
aether. This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really
meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was
incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific
"preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the
field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean
geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries),
much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say
there
is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational
waves
running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy, which
gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether" in the
very
weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum (namely
nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties of "space"
in a
3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into gtr. In modern
quantum
field theories, of course, there are still more "things which are there"
in
a vacuum, but again these do not constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth
century sense in which this word was used as a technical term. Einstein
was
criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the classical notion of
the
aether was such nonsense that people like Maxwell should have known
better.
He was saying that the problem with the classical aether was not
ontological, merely that it is inconsistent with observation and
experiment;
hence the need for str'
That's not entirely accurate. I read Ludwik Kostro book
"Einstein and the Ether" in the libary in one sitting last
night. What Einstein is sa | | | | | | | |
