Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475114 > unrolled thread

The Particulate Theory of Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:08 -0700
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-17 20:11 -0500
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 13:53 -0700
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-23 17:54 -0700
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 11:06 -0700
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-26 14:09 -0500
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-26 19:27 -0700
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 10:06 +0100
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-04 19:49 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
                  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-05 19:00 -0800
                    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 03:38 +0000
                      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-06 17:50 -0800
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-26 14:01 -0700
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-26 14:09 -0700
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-06 09:14 +0100
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-06 07:45 -0800
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 22:25 +0100
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-07 09:57 +0100
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:47 -0800
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-07 21:58 +0100
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:04 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:58 -0800
                  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 15:31 -0800
                    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:03 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-10 21:16 +0100
                  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 22:31 +0100
                    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 15:29 -0800
                      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-12 03:45 +0100
                      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-12 04:27 +0100
                        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:52 -0800
                          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 19:46 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#475114 — The Particulate Theory of Relativity

Background

In 1919. the proton was discovered by Rutherford.
Einstein never included a proton in his General Theory of R.

What causes gravity? Protons. Or as Einstein guessed: mass.

E = mcc

m is not the initial for matter, m is mass.

Time is emitted by protons, radially at c.

Space is consumed by protons at a constant momentum:

p = V / tau

V is proton volume, tau is 5 nanoseconds. Calculus form:

http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/

Alan Folmsbee

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#475161

On 10/17/18 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> [... complete nonsense]

When you don't know anything about the subject, all you can do is write 
nonsense. Why bother?

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475512

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-10, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > [... complete nonsense]
> 
> When you don't know anything about the subject, all you can do is write 
> nonsense. Why bother?
> 
> Tom Roberts

Hello TR, 
your non-technical question is not important.
Here is an important idea about the strong nuclear force,
using youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig

The strong force is gravity using higher derivatives of time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475564

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:53:58 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-10, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 10/17/18 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > [... complete nonsense]
> > 
> > When you don't know anything about the subject, all you can do is write 
> > nonsense. Why bother?
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> Hello TR, 
> your non-technical question is not important.
> Here is an important idea about the strong nuclear force,
> using youtube
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig
> 
> The strong force is gravity using higher derivatives of time.

Meaningless. Nonsense.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475670

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 2:54:42 PM UTC-10, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:53:58 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-10, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 10/17/18 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > [... complete nonsense]
> > > 
> > > When you don't know anything about the subject, all you can do is write 
> > > nonsense. Why bother?
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > Hello TR, 
> > your non-technical question is not important.
> > Here is an important idea about the strong nuclear force,
> > using youtube
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig
> > 
> > The strong force is gravity using higher derivatives of time.
> 
> Meaningless. Nonsense.
> 
> --
> Jan

Dear Jan, your non-technical comment is not important. Here is some content:

The relativistic effects are including curvature of space.
The curvature of a proton has a radius of a femtometer.
That increases gravity for particles near to a nucleus.
Time is ignored by standard physics, as no progress in
time theories recognizes where it comes from: matter.

Time is more dense near a nucleus, as it emerges
from the core of the nucleus. Particulate relativity
is about space flowing into matter, time flowing out
in an equal amount. The geometry is compared
to Schrodinger's algebra here for neon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFYe2iBPtzI

In that video, the static stacking of spheres is
shown to be realistic for the shape of the nucleus.
This is the future science, based on the pyramidal cube theory
of nuclear structure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475673

On 10/26/18 1:06 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The curvature of a proton has a radius of a femtometer.

You are greatly confused, intermixing the radius of a spherical surface 
with the curvature radius of spacetime. They are QUITE different. It is 
the latter that indicates (loosely) the "strength of gravity", not the 
former.

For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475681

tjrob137 escrito 

On 10/26/18 1:06 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: 
> The curvature of a proton has a radius of a femtometer. 

You are greatly confused, intermixing the radius of a spherical surface 
with the curvature radius of spacetime. They are QUITE different. It is 
the latter that indicates (loosely) the "strength of gravity", not the 
former. 

For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear. 

Tom Roberts 

(Your response lacking the pertinent geometric values & relationships) is the same gibberings as Folmsbee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475745

Tom Roberts wrote:
> For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km;

The mean radius is ca. 6371 km already, the mean equatorial radius is ca.
6378 km (indicating that the mean *polar* radius is ca. 6356.8 km); so in
estimations one rather rounds up to 6400 km than down.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476272

On October 26, tjrob137 wrote:
> You are greatly confused, intermixing the radius of a spherical surface 
> with the curvature radius of spacetime. They are QUITE different. It is 
> the latter that indicates (loosely) the "strength of gravity", not the 
> former.
> For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
> curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear.

How is that calculated?

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476296

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On October 26, tjrob137 wrote:
>> You are greatly confused, intermixing the radius of a spherical surface 
>> with the curvature radius of spacetime. They are QUITE different. It is 
>> the latter that indicates (loosely) the "strength of gravity", not the 
>> former.
>> For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
>> curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear.
> 
> How is that calculated?
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

I did that in another thread. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476369

On November 5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> You are greatly confused, intermixing the radius of a spherical surface 
>>> with the curvature radius of spacetime. They are QUITE different. It is 
>>> the latter that indicates (loosely) the "strength of gravity", not the 
>>> former.
>>> For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
>>> curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear.
> 
>> How is that calculated?
>
> I did that in another thread. 

?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476372

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On November 5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> You are greatly confused, intermixing the radius of a spherical surface 
>>>> with the curvature radius of spacetime. They are QUITE different. It is 
>>>> the latter that indicates (loosely) the "strength of gravity", not the 
>>>> former.
>>>> For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
>>>> curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear.
>> 
>>> How is that calculated?
>> 
>> I did that in another thread. 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 

See threads by Porat. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476464

On November 5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> For instance, the radius of the earth's surface is about 6,360 km; the 
>>>>> curvature radius of spacetime at that surface is about 1 lightyear.
> 
>>>> How is that calculated?
> 
>>> I did that in another thread. 
> 
>> ?
> 
> See threads by Porat. 

?
Don't know what that means - 

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475675

W dniu środa, 24 października 2018 02:54:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 1:53:58 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-10, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 10/17/18 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > [... complete nonsense]
> > > 
> > > When you don't know anything about the subject, all you can do is write 
> > > nonsense. Why bother?
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > Hello TR, 
> > your non-technical question is not important.
> > Here is an important idea about the strong nuclear force,
> > using youtube
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig
> > 
> > The strong force is gravity using higher derivatives of time.
> 
> Meaningless. Nonsense.
> 
> --
> Jan

Indeed.
The so-called nuclear force is another fantastic numerological fallacy of the pseudoscientific mainstream... primitivism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475676

W dniu poniedziałek, 22 października 2018 22:53:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Alan Folmsbee napisał:
> On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-10, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 10/17/18 12:08 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > [... complete nonsense]
> > 
> > When you don't know anything about the subject, all you can do is write 
> > nonsense. Why bother?
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> Hello TR, 
> your non-technical question is not important.
> Here is an important idea about the strong nuclear force,
> using youtube
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIp1fYF1kig
> 
> The strong force is gravity using higher derivatives of time.

There is no any special strong force in the nucleus.

Facts:
1. atomic energy is of order 10eV
2. nuclear energy is of order 1000000eV

so, what this means?
- the nuclear forces are much stronger than the atomics?
- or maybe simply: size of atom / size of nucleus = 1/100000 ?

hahaha!

try this:
1A (Angstrom) / 1fm = ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476395

Am 17.10.2018 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> Background
> 
> In 1919. the proton was discovered by Rutherford.
> Einstein never included a proton in his General Theory of R.
> 
> What causes gravity? Protons. Or as Einstein guessed: mass.


As far as I can tell, Einstein assumed that 'curved spacetime' causes 
gravity and mass curves spacetime.

> E = mcc
> 
> m is not the initial for matter, m is mass.

Actually I think, the equation is wrong, since the terms E, m and c are 
absolute, but the effect is 'relative'.

IOW the decrease in mass in radioactive decay is balanced by emitted 
energy. And that is 'relative' (actually it is changing a certain state) 
and that would require 'deltas'.

So: delta(m) times c equals delta (E) times delta(m)^-1

> Time is emitted by protons, radially at c.

not really...

protons are less stable than neutron, hence a more natural candidate as 
'emitter of time' would be a neutron.

I personally think, that time is more fundamental than particles. I call 
matter 'timelike stable patterns'.

So matter is bound to the axis of time. Emitted rays move away along the 
light cone. This cone is defined by the velocity c, if we use complex 
angles as measure for velocity (angle 45°), and by the axis of time.

..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476420

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 12:14:54 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> So: delta(m) times c equals delta (E) times delta(m)^-1
> 

The above is equivalent with :

delta(m)^2 times c = delta (E)

You are as wrong as the Alan crank. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476444

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.10.2018 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
>> In 1919. the proton was discovered by Rutherford.
>> Einstein never included a proton in his General Theory of R.

And why should he?

>> What causes gravity? Protons.

Not only.  There are many more particles other than protons …

> Or as Einstein guessed: mass.

… and most of them have non-zero mass.  Also, mass (density) is not the only
contributor to the effect of gravity.  That is precisely why Newton’s theory
of gravitation is wrong inasfar as it cannot explain a number of other
observations, for example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (there
is no other planet that causes it).

> As far as I can tell, Einstein assumed that 'curved spacetime' causes 
> gravity and mass curves spacetime.

Wow, a correct (if incomplete) statement by *you* about relativity, and
*general* relativity on top of that.

Your statement is correct because according to general relativity
(mathematically sound and confirmed numerous times by observation,
so NOT merely an assumption), gravity is just an apparent force, an
observable effect on the motion of objects, due the _curvature of_
spacetime.  (Like when you move on a curved path if you travel in
a straight line on a sphere, which is a curved surface.)

Your statement is incomplete because it is not so that “mass curves
spacetime” (that is just the simplified version), but that the *density*
of *energy* and *momentum* is *equivalent* to the curvature of spacetime.

And as rest energy is equivalent to mass (see below), the mass _density_ of
an object in spacetime contributes to the curvature of spacetime, too.  (The
first component of the energy–momentum tensor that appears in the field
equations is the energy density of space.)

>> E = mcc
>>
>> m is not the initial for matter, m is mass.
> 
> Actually I think, the equation is wrong, since the terms E, m and c are 
> absolute, but the effect is 'relative'.

Damn.  You had come so far.

The equation is *correct*, because there is nothing relative about any "effect".

> IOW the decrease in mass in radioactive decay is balanced by emitted 
> energy.

That much is true.

> And that is 'relative' (actually it is changing a certain state) 
> and that would require 'deltas'.
There *are* deltas (what’s with the quotation marks all the time?):

  ∆m = ∆E/c²

∆m is the mass that the radioactive specimen loses when it emits radiation
of the energy ∆E.

This is actually the equation that corresponds to Einstein’s analysis in his
second paper on special relativity, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon
Its Enery Content?”).  But he used words to describe his conclusion, and
because it was only 1905, he wrote L/V² instead; “L” presumably for German
„Lichtenergie“ (“light energy”).

>> Time is emitted by protons, radially at c.
> 
> not really...

Not _at all_.  That is just pseudoscientific word salad akin to your own.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476480

Am 06.11.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.10.2018 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
>>> In 1919. the proton was discovered by Rutherford.
>>> Einstein never included a proton in his General Theory of R.
> 
> And why should he?
> 
>>> What causes gravity? Protons.
> 
> Not only.  There are many more particles other than protons …
> 
>> Or as Einstein guessed: mass.
> 
> … and most of them have non-zero mass.  Also, mass (density) is not the only
> contributor to the effect of gravity.  That is precisely why Newton’s theory
> of gravitation is wrong inasfar as it cannot explain a number of other
> observations, for example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (there
> is no other planet that causes it).
> 
>> As far as I can tell, Einstein assumed that 'curved spacetime' causes
>> gravity and mass curves spacetime.
> 
> Wow, a correct (if incomplete) statement by *you* about relativity, and
> *general* relativity on top of that.
> 
> Your statement is correct because according to general relativity
> (mathematically sound and confirmed numerous times by observation,
> so NOT merely an assumption), gravity is just an apparent force, an
> observable effect on the motion of objects, due the _curvature of_
> spacetime.  (Like when you move on a curved path if you travel in
> a straight line on a sphere, which is a curved surface.)
> 
> Your statement is incomplete because it is not so that “mass curves
> spacetime” (that is just the simplified version), but that the *density*
> of *energy* and *momentum* is *equivalent* to the curvature of spacetime.
> 
> And as rest energy is equivalent to mass (see below), the mass _density_ of
> an object in spacetime contributes to the curvature of spacetime, too.  (The
> first component of the energy–momentum tensor that appears in the field
> equations is the energy density of space.)
> 
>>> E = mcc
>>>
>>> m is not the initial for matter, m is mass.
>>
>> Actually I think, the equation is wrong, since the terms E, m and c are
>> absolute, but the effect is 'relative'.
> 
> Damn.  You had come so far.
> 
> The equation is *correct*, because there is nothing relative about any "effect".

The radioactive decay is something, what I would call 'effect'.

'Phenomenon' or 'observation' are also possible phrases, but 'effect' is 
imho better.

But English is a second language for me, hence I could make occasional 
mistakes.


Second: 'relative' has a meaning, too, in common language. That is 'in 
comparison to something'.

So the radioactive decay is altering a certain state from 'before decay' 
to 'after decay'.

The decay is therefor relative to that state (which it alters).

If you leave out this relation, you mess up the entire thing.



>> IOW the decrease in mass in radioactive decay is balanced by emitted
>> energy.
> 
> That much is true.
> 
>> And that is 'relative' (actually it is changing a certain state)
>> and that would require 'deltas'.
> There *are* deltas (what’s with the quotation marks all the time?):

There are NO deltas in E=m*c² !!!

You cannot assume, what is not there.



These 'quotation marks' have a different meaning than what you think.

First I use '"' for quotes.

The ' is meant as separator between the sentence itself and some other 
level of meaning of a certain object or phrase.

E.g. the comma (',') is put into these signs ('), because the sentence 
can have commas in it, but if the sign itself is meant, you need to 
separate it somehow.

In this case I have put 'deltas' in such signs, since I wanted to hint, 
that not a Greek letter was missing, but a reference to the evolution in 
time (delta = state_ after - state_ before).

It is questionable in this case. But UseNet writing is different to 
other types of writing, since UseNet is Ascii-only and a little 
'rougher' than other kinds of communication.

Here 'rough' is put in such 'quotation marks', because I wanted to give 
a hint, that not the roughness of a surface was meant.

> 
>    ∆m = ∆E/c²
> 
> ∆m is the mass that the radioactive specimen loses when it emits radiation
> of the energy ∆E.
> 
> This is actually the equation that corresponds to Einstein’s analysis in his
> second paper on special relativity, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon
> Its Enery Content?”).  But he used words to describe his conclusion, and
> because it was only 1905, he wrote L/V² instead; “L” presumably for German
> „Lichtenergie“ (“light energy”).

I do not agree, since a text stands as it is, not as it is meant.

So a certain statement - like in this case Einstein's 1905 article - is 
as it is. You cannot say, that he actually had such deltas in mind, 
since later he added them somewhere.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476504

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.11.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 17.10.2018 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
> >>> In 1919. the proton was discovered by Rutherford.
> >>> Einstein never included a proton in his General Theory of R.
> > 
> > And why should he?
> > 
> >>> What causes gravity? Protons.
> > 
> > Not only.  There are many more particles other than protons …
> > 
> >> Or as Einstein guessed: mass.
> > 
> > … and most of them have non-zero mass.  Also, mass (density) is not the only
> > contributor to the effect of gravity.  That is precisely why Newton’s theory
> > of gravitation is wrong inasfar as it cannot explain a number of other
> > observations, for example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (there
> > is no other planet that causes it).
> > 
> >> As far as I can tell, Einstein assumed that 'curved spacetime' causes
> >> gravity and mass curves spacetime.
> > 
> > Wow, a correct (if incomplete) statement by *you* about relativity, and
> > *general* relativity on top of that.
> > 
> > Your statement is correct because according to general relativity
> > (mathematically sound and confirmed numerous times by observation,
> > so NOT merely an assumption), gravity is just an apparent force, an
> > observable effect on the motion of objects, due the _curvature of_
> > spacetime.  (Like when you move on a curved path if you travel in
> > a straight line on a sphere, which is a curved surface.)
> > 
> > Your statement is incomplete because it is not so that “mass curves
> > spacetime” (that is just the simplified version), but that the *density*
> > of *energy* and *momentum* is *equivalent* to the curvature of spacetime.
> > 
> > And as rest energy is equivalent to mass (see below), the mass _density_ of
> > an object in spacetime contributes to the curvature of spacetime, too.  (The
> > first component of the energy–momentum tensor that appears in the field
> > equations is the energy density of space.)
> > 
> >>> E = mcc
> >>>
> >>> m is not the initial for matter, m is mass.
> >>
> >> Actually I think, the equation is wrong, since the terms E, m and c are
> >> absolute, but the effect is 'relative'.
> > 
> > Damn.  You had come so far.
> > 
> > The equation is *correct*, because there is nothing relative about any "effect".
> 
> The radioactive decay is something, what I would call 'effect'.
> 
> 'Phenomenon' or 'observation' are also possible phrases, but 'effect' is 
> imho better.
> 
> But English is a second language for me, hence I could make occasional 
> mistakes.
> 
> 
> Second: 'relative' has a meaning, too, in common language. That is 'in 
> comparison to something'.
> 
> So the radioactive decay is altering a certain state from 'before decay' 
> to 'after decay'.
> 
> The decay is therefor relative to that state (which it alters).
> 
> If you leave out this relation, you mess up the entire thing.
> 
> 
> 
> >> IOW the decrease in mass in radioactive decay is balanced by emitted
> >> energy.
> > 
> > That much is true.
> > 
> >> And that is 'relative' (actually it is changing a certain state)
> >> and that would require 'deltas'.
> > There *are* deltas (what’s with the quotation marks all the time?):
> 
> There are NO deltas in E=m*c² !!!
> 
> You cannot assume, what is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> These 'quotation marks' have a different meaning than what you think.
> 
> First I use '"' for quotes.
> 
> The ' is meant as separator between the sentence itself and some other 
> level of meaning of a certain object or phrase.
> 
> E.g. the comma (',') is put into these signs ('), because the sentence 
> can have commas in it, but if the sign itself is meant, you need to 
> separate it somehow.
> 
> In this case I have put 'deltas' in such signs, since I wanted to hint, 
> that not a Greek letter was missing, but a reference to the evolution in 
> time (delta = state_ after - state_ before).
> 
> It is questionable in this case. But UseNet writing is different to 
> other types of writing, since UseNet is Ascii-only and a little 
> 'rougher' than other kinds of communication.
> 
> Here 'rough' is put in such 'quotation marks', because I wanted to give 
> a hint, that not the roughness of a surface was meant.
> 
> > 
> >    ∆m = ∆E/c²
> > 
> > ∆m is the mass that the radioactive specimen loses when it emits radiation
> > of the energy ∆E.
> > 
> > This is actually the equation that corresponds to Einstein’s analysis in his
> > second paper on special relativity, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon
> > Its Enery Content?”).  But he used words to describe his conclusion, and
> > because it was only 1905, he wrote L/V² instead; “L” presumably for German
> > „Lichtenergie“ (“light energy”).
> 
> I do not agree, since a text stands as it is, not as it is meant.
> 
> So a certain statement - like in this case Einstein's 1905 article - is 
> as it is. You cannot say, that he actually had such deltas in mind, 
> since later he added them somewhere.
> 
> TH

Dear TH and other correspondents, 

It is gratifying to read your intelligent responses.
Yes neutrons cause gravity and protons cause gravity.
Electrons do not, they are always paired with protons
in matter.

Relativity experiments are always using protons
in the laboratory apparatus. Frames of reference
for those tests always are frames of matter.

A balance of nature is shown as gravity makes space go into 
matter and time grows out. Standard science is vague about
time. This new Gravity Volume Theory provides more details
about time than ever before. Your baryons are the source of
your times.

Every nucleus uses relative growth of time and relative
drainage of space to keep the strong nuclear force to be
a form of gravity. Higher derivatives of time and mixed
partial derivatives of spacetime components are used in
The Particulate Theory of Relativity.

One physicist here doubted that protons have any importance
in relativity. That kind of doubt is born from a hope
that old dogma will always rule over this new progress.
This is Future Science.

Links to these theories is on this page:
http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/
for the fusion continuum efforts to make a future
with abundant, cheap electricity. Join the team, 
send an email: omnilobe at gmail dot com.

Alan Folmsbee MSEE 1989

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web