Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376379
| Message-ID | <56C40510.40D7@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 21:28 -0800 |
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: GRAVITY... |
| References | (3 earlier) <msKdnTC6Wce8CV7LnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com> <56C3A23C.EEE@ix.netcom.com> <J9udnfI_jvjCLF7LnZ2dnUU7-bsAAAAA@giganews.com> <56C3B6BA.3905@ix.netcom.com> <J9udne8_jvinJF7LnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 2/16/16 5:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> > >> On 2/16/16 4:27 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 2/16/16 2:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/16/16 1:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>>> i saw > >>>>>>> a person > >>>>>>> fall down.. > >>>>>>> and i > >>>>>>> wondered to > >>>>>>> myself... > >>>>>>> how many planets > >>>>>>> were involved? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Every bit of momentum-energy was involved, but not all significantly. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Are you saying Gravity contains...energy??? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No... > >>>> According to general relativity, our best model of gravitation, mass, > >>>> mass in motion and energy (momentum-energy) warp spacetime resulting > >>>> in what we call gravitation. > >>> > >>> > >>> There is no such word as "momentum-energy". > >>> > >> > >> It's routinely used in general relativity textbooks. And it is much > >> easier than saying mass, mass in motion and energy. > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation > >> > >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > >> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation > > > > Energy–momentum_relation or "momentum-energy" > > > > has nothing to do with Gravity! > > > > Even some school kids know the mass and energy warp spacetime and that > warped spacetime tells mass how to move (gravity) > > "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space > and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime." > That, in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory. > "manifestation"???? sounds too religious to me... manifestation is not physics, it's metaphysical...physcology.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 11:44 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 14:44 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:26 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 14:27 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 15:54 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:05 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 21:28 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 22:37 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 09:42 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:48 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 15:12 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:29 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:02 -0600
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 23:54 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 03:40 -0500
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0500
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 11:26 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 14:09 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:12 -0600
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-18 16:29 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:00 -0800
Re: GRAVITY...has not been proven to be true. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 12:06 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-19 23:24 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 05:33 -0800
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:24 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:55 -0600
Re: GRAVITY... Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:55 +0000
csiph-web