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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460098 > unrolled thread

Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

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.

Contents

  Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-02 21:31 +0200
    Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-02 14:03 -0700
      Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-02 22:16 +0000
        Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-07 20:35 +0200
          Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-07 13:13 -0700
            Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 14:06 -0700
              Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 06:29 -0700
                Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-08 18:43 +0200
                  Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 14:43 -0700
                    Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-06-23 13:55 +0200
                      Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-23 05:53 -0700
                        Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 00:28 +0000
                Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:21 -0700

#460098 — Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

Am 04.05.2018 um 14:54 schrieb kenseto:
> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?


'Force' require 'actio = reactio'.

IOW: if gravity would be caused by some kind of pull, this something 
would need to apply some kind of connection to the object the force 
should work on.

In  a Minkowski spacetime diagram acceleration is drawn as a curved line.

Since there is no other medium than space (which acts on the falling 
object), that space had to be curved.

This 'curvature of space' is therefore what causes things to drop.

This curvature is caused by the - say - planet, but it is still space, 
what applies this (well) force.

But since space cannot apply forces, gravity is not a force.

(somehow like that is GR ... slightly simplified )


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#460108

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:31:42 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 04.05.2018 um 14:54 schrieb kenseto:
> > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn’t a force in general relativity?
> 
> 
> 'Force' require 'actio = reactio'.
> 
> IOW: if gravity would be caused by some kind of pull, this something 
> would need to apply some kind of connection to the object the force 
> should work on.
> 
> In  a Minkowski spacetime diagram acceleration is drawn as a curved line.

We are not talking about Minkowski’s space-time diagram. We are taking about the DTG concept of gravity. In DTG there is an attractive EM force between interacting objects expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix. Also objects expanding in the same direction are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix....this effect is repulsive. Gravity is the combined result of these opposing forces. That’s why gravity is so weak compared to the EM force. A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

> 
> Since there is no other medium than space (which acts on the falling 
> object), that space had to be curved.
> 
> This 'curvature of space' is therefore what causes things to drop.
> 
> This curvature is caused by the - say - planet, but it is still space, 
> what applies this (well) force.
> 
> But since space cannot apply forces, gravity is not a force.
> 
> (somehow like that is GR ... slightly simplified )
> 
> 
> TH

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

#460116

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:31:42 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 04.05.2018 um 14:54 schrieb kenseto:
>> > Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity
>> > isn't a force in general relativity?

<snip Tom's explanation>

>We are not talking about Minkowski's space-time diagram. We are taking 
>about the DTG concept of gravity.

No, Stupid Ken, you asked (in the original post) why gravity is 
transmitted as particles if it is not a force in GR.  You never even 
mentioned your failed DTG in your question.

Nobody even cares one whit about your DTG since it is a complete, total,
absolute failure of a gravity explanation anyway.

<snip more babble>

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

#460616

Am 03.06.2018 um 00:16 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:31:42 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 04.05.2018 um 14:54 schrieb kenseto:
>>>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity
>>>> isn't a force in general relativity?
> 
> <snip Tom's explanation>
> 
>> We are not talking about Minkowski's space-time diagram. We are taking
>> about the DTG concept of gravity.
> 
> No, Stupid Ken, you asked (in the original post) why gravity is
> transmitted as particles if it is not a force in GR.  You never even
> mentioned your failed DTG in your question.
> 
> Nobody even cares one whit about your DTG since it is a complete, total,
> absolute failure of a gravity explanation anyway.

If I look at 'DTG' I could see some kind of faint resemblance of 
'spacetime' a la Minkowski (and that is an idea I try to promote.)


But I had always avoided the problem to find out, what that might 
actually be: spacetime???

My current approach is:

you can split 'nothing at all' into two opposing components. Then one 
component develops into one direction we call 'positive', while the 
other goes into the other direction (called 'negative').

(Both together add to zero)

The positive direction is called 'timelike'.

But the direction 'positive' is a question of the point of view.

IOW: observed from the negative side the direction 'positive' is 
actually negative.

The nothings splits then into two 'universes' and one is ours.

The opposing universe is actually there and passes right through 
everything, but invisible.


TH

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

#460630

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 2:35:19 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.06.2018 um 00:16 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > 
> >> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:31:42 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 04.05.2018 um 14:54 schrieb kenseto:
> >>>> Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity
> >>>> isn't a force in general relativity?
> > 
> > <snip Tom's explanation>
> > 
> >> We are not talking about Minkowski's space-time diagram. We are taking
> >> about the DTG concept of gravity.
> > 
> > No, Stupid Ken, you asked (in the original post) why gravity is
> > transmitted as particles if it is not a force in GR.  You never even
> > mentioned your failed DTG in your question.
> > 
> > Nobody even cares one whit about your DTG since it is a complete, total,
> > absolute failure of a gravity explanation anyway.
> 
> If I look at 'DTG' I could see some kind of faint resemblance of 
> ‘spacetime' a la Minkowski (and that is an idea I try to promote.)

No, spacetime is a mathematical construct and not physical as the E-Matrix is. Curvature in spacetime is a mathematical is a description of the path follow by the orbiting object.
When we replace spacetime with the E-Matrix we get a physical cause of gravity  between the earth and the moon is as follows:
1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to an attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. The unit vector of momentum of the moon caused by this attractive EM force is pointing at the center of the earth.

2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as they are expanding in it. This has a repulsive effect between them. The unit vector of momentum of this repulsive effect is pointing at the tangential direction.

3. The resulting unit momentum vector of the above forces is pointing in the curved tangential direction.

> 
> 
> But I had always avoided the problem to find out, what that might 
> actually be: spacetime???
> 
> My current approach is:
> 
> you can split 'nothing at all' into two opposing components. Then one 
> component develops into one direction we call 'positive', while the 
> other goes into the other direction (called 'negative').
> 
> (Both together add to zero)
> 
> The positive direction is called 'timelike'.
> 
> But the direction 'positive' is a question of the point of view.
> 
> IOW: observed from the negative side the direction 'positive' is 
> actually negative.
> 
> The nothings splits then into two 'universes' and one is ours.
> 
> The opposing universe is actually there and passes right through 
> everything, but invisible.
> 
> 
> TH

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

#460643

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> 
> No, spacetime is a mathematical construct and not physical
> as the E-Matrix is. Curvature in spacetime is a mathematical
> is a description of the path follow by the orbiting object.

So what physical properties for this mythical matrix?
Can you show it to us?

> When we replace spacetime with the E-Matrix we get a
> physical cause of gravity  between the earth and
> the moon is as follows:
> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to an
> attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. The unit
> vector of momentum of the moon caused by this attractive EM
> force is pointing at the center of the earth.
> 
> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and
> the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix
> as they are expanding in it. This has a repulsive effect between
> them. The unit vector of momentum of this repulsive effect is
> pointing at the tangential direction.
> 
> 3. The resulting unit momentum vector of the above forces
> is pointing in the curved tangential direction.
> 

OH NO! just when I thought you had finally given up
on the requirement for a tangential force, you bring it
back again. You must be suffering from short term memory
loss.

Meanwhile you are still unable to produce the math for a simple orbit?

Ed

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

#460674

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:06:22 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> 
> > 
> > No, spacetime is a mathematical construct and not physical
> > as the E-Matrix is. Curvature in spacetime is a mathematical
> > is a description of the path follow by the orbiting object.
> 
> So what physical properties for this mythical matrix?
> Can you show it to us?

I am not going to waste time on you. You refused to read my paper and book.

> 
> > When we replace spacetime with the E-Matrix we get a
> > physical cause of gravity  between the earth and
> > the moon is as follows:
> > 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> > in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to an
> > attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. The unit
> > vector of momentum of the moon caused by this attractive EM
> > force is pointing at the center of the earth.
> > 
> > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and
> > the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix
> > as they are expanding in it. This has a repulsive effect between
> > them. The unit vector of momentum of this repulsive effect is
> > pointing at the tangential direction.
> > 
> > 3. The resulting unit momentum vector of the above forces
> > is pointing in the curved tangential direction.
> > 
> 
> OH NO! just when I thought you had finally given up
> on the requirement for a tangential force, you bring it
> back again. You must be suffering from short term memory
> loss.

Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

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

#460691

Am 08.06.2018 um 15:29 schrieb kenseto:
> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:06:22 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, spacetime is a mathematical construct and not physical
>>> as the E-Matrix is. Curvature in spacetime is a mathematical
>>> is a description of the path follow by the orbiting object.
>>
>> So what physical properties for this mythical matrix?
>> Can you show it to us?
> 
> I am not going to waste time on you. You refused to read my paper and book.
> 
>>
>>> When we replace spacetime with the E-Matrix we get a
>>> physical cause of gravity  between the earth and
>>> the moon is as follows:
>>> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
>>> in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to an
>>> attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. The unit
>>> vector of momentum of the moon caused by this attractive EM
>>> force is pointing at the center of the earth.
>>>
>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and
>>> the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix
>>> as they are expanding in it. This has a repulsive effect between
>>> them. The unit vector of momentum of this repulsive effect is
>>> pointing at the tangential direction.
>>>
>>> 3. The resulting unit momentum vector of the above forces
>>> is pointing in the curved tangential direction.
>>>
>>
>> OH NO! just when I thought you had finally given up
>> on the requirement for a tangential force, you bring it
>> back again. You must be suffering from short term memory
>> loss.
> 
> Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> 

It's not a theory, but what write about bears the title 'your hypothesis'.

The question you try to solve with your assumption is: how does the 
universe function on the most fundamental level. You assume something 
you call 'e-matrix' to be acting on that level.

Well, I don't see, why there should be something of this kind and see no 
reason, why the universe should be based on such a strange mechanism.

I have developed own ideas for the same problem. I call it 'structured 
spacetime' and you can read about it in my 'book' (actually a google.doc):

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I kind of start on the 'GR-side' and attempt to build particles out of 
spacetime.

This concept seems (at least for me) to function and could be based on 
very simple and plausible first principles (contrary to your 'e-matrix').

TH

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

#460732

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:43:10 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.06.2018 um 15:29 schrieb kenseto:
> > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:06:22 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> No, spacetime is a mathematical construct and not physical
> >>> as the E-Matrix is. Curvature in spacetime is a mathematical
> >>> is a description of the path follow by the orbiting object.
> >>
> >> So what physical properties for this mythical matrix?
> >> Can you show it to us?
> > 
> > I am not going to waste time on you. You refused to read my paper and book.
> > 
> >>
> >>> When we replace spacetime with the E-Matrix we get a
> >>> physical cause of gravity  between the earth and
> >>> the moon is as follows:
> >>> 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> >>> in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to an
> >>> attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. The unit
> >>> vector of momentum of the moon caused by this attractive EM
> >>> force is pointing at the center of the earth.
> >>>
> >>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and
> >>> the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix
> >>> as they are expanding in it. This has a repulsive effect between
> >>> them. The unit vector of momentum of this repulsive effect is
> >>> pointing at the tangential direction.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The resulting unit momentum vector of the above forces
> >>> is pointing in the curved tangential direction.
> >>>
> >>
> >> OH NO! just when I thought you had finally given up
> >> on the requirement for a tangential force, you bring it
> >> back again. You must be suffering from short term memory
> >> loss.
> > 
> > Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> > 
> 
> It’s not a theory, but what write about bears the title 'your hypothesis'.

It is a theory. Your assertion is not valid.

> 
> The question you try to solve with your assumption is: how does the 
> universe function on the most fundamental level. You assume something 
> you call ‘e-matrix’ to be acting on that level. 

Read my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
In this book, the main features of Model Mechanics are included as follows:
It offers a realistic origin of the universe. 
It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. 
It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature. 
It can be validated experimentally. 
It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). 
It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments. 
It explains the structures of atoms. 


> 
> Well, I don't see, why there should be something of this kind and see no 
> reason, why the universe should be based on such a strange mechanism.

Hey that’s my assumption. All Theories have assumptions for example your theory include the assumption of spacetime.


> 
> I have developed own ideas for the same problem. I call it 'structured 
> spacetime' and you can read about it in my 'book' (actually a google.doc):
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> I kind of start on the 'GR-side' and attempt to build particles out of 
> spacetime.
> 
> This concept seems (at least for me) to function and could be based on 
> very simple and plausible first principles (contrary to your 'e-matrix').
> 
> TH

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

#462315

Am 08.06.2018 um 23:43 schrieb kenseto:
..
>>> Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
>>>
>>
>> It’s not a theory, but what write about bears the title 'your hypothesis'.
> 
> It is a theory. Your assertion is not valid.


No. A theory is a hypothesis, which could not be falsified.

What you have written is a hypothesis.

>>
>> The question you try to solve with your assumption is: how does the
>> universe function on the most fundamental level. You assume something
>> you call ‘e-matrix’ to be acting on that level.
> 
> Read my book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> In this book, the main features of Model Mechanics are included as follows:
> It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
I don't think, that big-bang theory is correct, hence do not want a 
'realistic' model for the origin of the universe.

> It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.

I had the idea called 'structured spacetime' where particles (and 
matter) are in fact internal structures of/in spacetime.

So I only need a few additional assumptions.

> It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.

???

> It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.

How are you doing that????

> It can be validated experimentally.

If these strings are infinitely long and infinitely thin, they could 
hardly be measured (especially if they are in fact infinitely long).

...
>>
>> Well, I don't see, why there should be something of this kind and see no
>> reason, why the universe should be based on such a strange mechanism.
> 
> Hey that’s my assumption. All Theories have assumptions for example your theory include the assumption of spacetime.
> 

Well, yes. But I see a difference in likelihood between spacetime and 
infinitely long elastic strings.

>>
>> I have developed own ideas for the same problem. I call it 'structured
>> spacetime' and you can read about it in my 'book' (actually a google.doc):
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I kind of start on the 'GR-side' and attempt to build particles out of
>> spacetime.
>>
>> This concept seems (at least for me) to function and could be based on
>> very simple and plausible first principles (contrary to your 'e-matrix').
>>
>> TH

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

#462323

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:55:35 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.06.2018 um 23:43 schrieb kenseto:
> ..
> >>> Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It’s not a theory, but what write about bears the title 'your hypothesis'.
> > 
> > It is a theory. Your assertion is not valid.
> 
> 
> No. A theory is a hypothesis, which could not be falsified.
> 
> What you have written is a hypothesis.

My theory can be falsified. See the proposed experiments in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
> 
> >>
> >> The question you try to solve with your assumption is: how does the
> >> universe function on the most fundamental level. You assume something
> >> you call ‘e-matrix’ to be acting on that level.
> > 
> > Read my book in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > In this book, the main features of Model Mechanics are included as follows:
> > It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
> I don't think, that big-bang theory is correct, hence do not want a 
> 'realistic' model for the origin of the universe.
> 
> > It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> 
> I had the idea called 'structured spacetime' where particles (and 
> matter) are in fact internal structures of/in spacetime.

So what is spacetime? Is it just a mathematical construct and thus it has no material meaning? Does it has any boundary? 
 
> So I only need a few additional assumptions.
> 
> > It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> 
>????

Read Chapter 7 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> 
> > It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> 
> How are you doing that????

Read the book.

> 
> > It can be validated experimentally.
> 
> If these strings are infinitely long and infinitely thin, they could 
> hardly be measured (especially if they are in fact infinitely long).

In Chapter 5 of my book, I proposed experiments to detect absolute motion. There is no need to measure the length of an E-String which BTW it is not measurable by definition. 
> 
> ...
> >>
> >> Well, I don't see, why there should be something of this kind and see no
> >> reason, why the universe should be based on such a strange mechanism.
> > 
> > Hey that’s my assumption. All Theories have assumptions for example your theory include the assumption of spacetime.
> > 
> 
> Well, yes. But I see a difference in likelihood between spacetime and 
> infinitely long elastic strings.

Is your spacetime have boundary?
> 
> >>
> >> I have developed own ideas for the same problem. I call it 'structured
> >> spacetime' and you can read about it in my 'book' (actually a google.doc):
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >>
> >> I kind of start on the 'GR-side' and attempt to build particles out of
> >> spacetime.
> >>
> >> This concept seems (at least for me) to function and could be based on
> >> very simple and plausible first principles (contrary to your 'e-matrix').
> >>
> >> TH

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

#462415

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 7:55:35 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 08.06.2018 um 23:43 schrieb kenseto:
>> ..
>> >> It's not a theory, but what write about bears the title 'your 
>> >> hypothesis'.

>> > It is a theory. Your assertion is not valid.

>> No. A theory is a hypothesis, which could not be falsified.
>> What you have written is a hypothesis.

>My theory can be falsified. See the proposed experiments in the following 
>link:

No, what you wrote is just vague babble and is not in any way
falsification. So your claims are just a hypothesis, not a theory.

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

#460718

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:30:00 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:06:22 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > No, spacetime is a mathematical construct and not physical
> > > as the E-Matrix is. Curvature in spacetime is a mathematical
> > > is a description of the path follow by the orbiting object.
> > 
> > So what physical properties for this mythical matrix?
> > Can you show it to us?
> 
> I am not going to waste time on you.
> You refused to read my paper and book.

The discussion is HERE. not in your book.
This is how usenet works. The discussion is here.

> 
> > 
> > > When we replace spacetime with the E-Matrix we get a
> > > physical cause of gravity  between the earth and
> > > the moon is as follows:
> > > 1. The earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> > > in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This gives rise to an
> > > attractive EM force between the earth and the moon. The unit
> > > vector of momentum of the moon caused by this attractive EM
> > > force is pointing at the center of the earth.
> > > 
> > > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent. The earth and
> > > the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix
> > > as they are expanding in it. This has a repulsive effect between
> > > them. The unit vector of momentum of this repulsive effect is
> > > pointing at the tangential direction.
> > > 
> > > 3. The resulting unit momentum vector of the above forces
> > > is pointing in the curved tangential direction.
> > > 
> > 
> > OH NO! just when I thought you had finally given up
> > on the requirement for a tangential force, you bring it
> > back again. You must be suffering from short term memory
> > loss.
> 
> Idiot, we are talking about my theory. In my theory there
> is a repulsive effect derived from that the earth and the
> moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

From said mythical matrix you still are unable to calculate
an orbital equation.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web