Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #364728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-20 17:11 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-24 09:55 -0700 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 44 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-20 17:11 +0000
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-21 12:04 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 16:51 -0400
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 15:45 +0000
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 07:25 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-24 15:01 +0000
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 10:05 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 11:21 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 11:46 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 12:03 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 05:39 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 07:30 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-25 08:19 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 10:15 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-25 13:45 -0400
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 11:07 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 22:19 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 13:30 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:25 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 05:54 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 22:20 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 20:02 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 20:19 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 20:30 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-27 11:28 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-27 12:34 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-28 06:23 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-28 19:47 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-29 10:14 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-30 04:56 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 08:14 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 08:50 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 09:04 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 18:29 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-05 10:00 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 06:11 -0700
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 21:01 -0400
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:17 +0200
Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 09:55 -0700
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f21d819d-5ca8-4494-a36e-defe18c206d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365310 |
Kinetic energy is defined as energy of moving bodies. Since there are no such bodies in vacuum, you have no kinetic energy. This would mean, that your reply is the most unjustified assumption possible. You may also separate the quoted text from your reply, because otherwise it is impossible to see, what you have written yourself. TH e^2=(pc)^2+( mc^2 )^2 The vacuum is Equivalent to kinetic energy PoE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 21:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s11Nx.75824$eB4.45309@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #365189 |
On 09/24/2015 04:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.09.2015 17:01, schrieb Jimmie Wynne:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>> Real life "spacetime" cannot possibly causate Gravity. Only Matter can
>>>> perform the task. This particularly according to the Divergent Matter
>>>> Model (DMM).
>>>
>>> Soacetime is related to gravity, since matter 'likes' to stay together.
>>
>> Completely void of relevance.
>>
>>> This we see in all sort of things, since a thing is a thing, if it stays
>>> as it is.
>>
>> ..Matter is total different from empty space.
>
> if you take matter away from space, you get a vacuum.
>
> But actually what is space?
>
> Usually we call 'space' the set of points, we see remote and empty. So a
> distant star is separated from Earth by a lot of (mostly) empty space.
>
> Since this space is predominantly empty, we have only the coordinates of
> these points. And the set of all possible coordinates we call 'space'.
>
> These coordinates are usually ordered n-tupels with n= 3 and three
> numbers of the type length.
>
> Other coordinates are polar coordinates of two angles and one distance.
>
> The distance is measured in run-length of light, e.g. in light-years.
>
> Now light is (in relativity terms) 'light-like', while mass/matter is
> timelike.
>
> The opposite of timelike is spacelike.
>
> But space is NOT spacelike (even if this sound that way), since we use
> light to measure distance (hence space).
>
> But what actually is 'spacelike' then?
>
> If we had a connection into that realm, this would look like a static
> field, since such a connection would have no time-component. And that is
> what 'static' means.
>
> Now we could do a trick and let a wave oscillate from timelike to
> spacelike (and back).
>
> How would that look like?
>
> It would be a tiny mass, surrounded by a spherical shell of a static
> field. That spherical shell is more or less the same wave, but of
> opposite sign. And it has no mass (since mass is timelike).
>
> how does this look like?
>
> Well, actually the description seems to fit to an atom.
>
> TH
Will you stop trying to think and just BELIEVE fer crissake?
Science isn't about thinking it's about believing what your betters tell
you.
Space time is simple. Warps in space-time cause gravity! Just like
warps in space-temperature cause global warming. Anyone can understand
that!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 08:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6mrkjF44esU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #365204 |
Am 25.09.2015 03:01, schrieb benj: .. >> The distance is measured in run-length of light, e.g. in light-years. >> >> Now light is (in relativity terms) 'light-like', while mass/matter is >> timelike. >> >> The opposite of timelike is spacelike. >> >> But space is NOT spacelike (even if this sound that way), since we use >> light to measure distance (hence space). >> >> But what actually is 'spacelike' then? >> >> If we had a connection into that realm, this would look like a static >> field, since such a connection would have no time-component. And that is >> what 'static' means. >> >> Now we could do a trick and let a wave oscillate from timelike to >> spacelike (and back). >> >> How would that look like? >> >> It would be a tiny mass, surrounded by a spherical shell of a static >> field. That spherical shell is more or less the same wave, but of >> opposite sign. And it has no mass (since mass is timelike). >> >> how does this look like? >> >> Well, actually the description seems to fit to an atom. >> . > > > Will you stop trying to think and just BELIEVE fer crissake? > > Science isn't about thinking it's about believing what your betters tell > you. > This may actually be the case and 'science' is a actually a 'church'. These believers have their high-priests, that drip wisdom into their brains (until this is well flooded with wisdom). Unfortunately I do not know, since I'm not a member. Physics is more or less a hobby and my latest profession was to run a gallery. So I do not know anybody to believe in personally, hence have to think myself. And now I have found something and like those high-priest to have a look at my findings. They gracefully bent down and whisper into my ears, that I shall f*** off. So I leave my 'book' as it is and only occasionally mention it: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH > Space time is simple. Warps in space-time cause gravity! Just like warps > in space-temperature cause global warming. Anyone can understand that! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <762bcae2-4db6-4754-9fe6-c1b245b9fd5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365119 |
Time-like = <entropy Space-like = <energy Gravity is mass gaining more entropy. (Watts per second to raise 1 kilogram 9.804 meters for each second) that is no longer available in the future to do work.. 6.674×10^−11 N⋅m^2/kg^2 ((1kg * 1kg)/6.674×10^−11m)*6.674×10^−11 = 1.0 × 10^-22 m kg^2
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web