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

Groups > sci.physics > #521987 > unrolled thread

Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 07:54 -0500
    Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 06:01 -0700
      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Rock Brentwood <federation2005@netzero.com> - 2015-09-28 17:38 -0700
    Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 01:24 -0700
      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 01:26 -0700
        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 09:20 -0700
          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. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 04:18 -0700
            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. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 22:19 +0200
                  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. xxein1@att.net - 2015-09-26 13:04 -0700
                  Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 22:43 -0700
                  that, that is gOOd noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 13:09 -0700
                    Re: that, that is gOOd "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 00:46 -0700
                      Re: that, that is gOOd noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 17:10 -0700
                        Re: that, that is gOOd noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:50 -0700
          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:17 -0700
            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:32 -0700
              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:33 -0700
                Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 02:12 -0700
                  Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:34 -0700
                  ** yours noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 18:49 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#521987 — Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.

Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.
> http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-why-does-curved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/


> The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of
> objects until they are moving really fast.  With the exception of
> only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close
> to flat.  For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth
> amounts to less than 1cm.  The precession of Mercury’s orbit is
> another example of the tiny effect of the curvature of space (and it
> is tiny).  Literally, there’s a little more space near the Sun than
> there “should” be, and as a result the direction in which Mercury’s
> orbit is elliptical moves.  It takes a little over 3 million years
> for it to go full circle.
>
> In almost all cases the vast majority of an object’s movement is tied
> up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime
> (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy
> objects, the “future direction” points slightly down. So anything
> that moves forward in time will find its trajectory pointing down
> slightly.  This takes the form of downward acceleration. This
> acceleration (time pointing slightly down) is entirely responsible
> for the motion of the planets, and every other everyday experience of
> gravity.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#521989 — Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

Gibberish

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

#523672 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 8:01:46 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Gibberish

There's nothing gibberish about it. You can do the same thing with Newtonian gravity, in fact, in case anyone is under illusions about this being a "GR thing".

The one and only condition that makes this possible is the equivalence principle, which holds in both cases. Under such condition the geometric representation is always to be preferred because it provides a single unified framework, account and explanation for gravity and inertia. For Newtonian physics that means the 1st/2nd Laws (inertia) are unified with the de facto 4th Law (gravity) into one.

So sometimes the field is called a "guiding field" rather than the "gravity field" since it provides the grooves (so to say) on which the rails of inertia are placed.

More to the point of the original question -- this is also why the geometry is referred to as a "chrono-geometry" since "geometry" gives the wrong picture. It's time that's curved and that's the active agent behind the spontaneous acceleration seen in free fall, not the curvature of space.

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

#522173 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:54:04 PM UTC+3, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.
> > http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-why-does-curved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/
> 
> 
> > The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of
> > objects until they are moving really fast.  With the exception of
> > only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close
> > to flat.  For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth
> > amounts to less than 1cm.  The precession of Mercury's orbit is
> > another example of the tiny effect of the curvature of space (and it
> > is tiny).  Literally, there's a little more space near the Sun than
> > there "should" be, and as a result the direction in which Mercury's
> > orbit is elliptical moves.  It takes a little over 3 million years
> > for it to go full circle.
> >
> > In almost all cases the vast majority of an object's movement is tied
> > up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime
> > (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy
> > objects, the "future direction" points slightly down. So anything
> > that moves forward in time will find its trajectory pointing down
> > slightly.  This takes the form of downward acceleration. This
> > acceleration (time pointing slightly down) is entirely responsible
> > for the motion of the planets, and every other everyday experience of
> > gravity.
> 
> 
 ===========================
imbecile parrot !!
THERE IS NO CURVED SPACE TIME 
 I KILLED IT not too long   AGO 
Y.Porat
=================================

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

#522174 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 11:24:28 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:54:04 PM UTC+3, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.
> > > http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-why-does-curved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/
> > 
> > 
> > > The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of
> > > objects until they are moving really fast.  With the exception of
> > > only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close
> > > to flat.  For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth
> > > amounts to less than 1cm.  The precession of Mercury's orbit is
> > > another example of the tiny effect of the curvature of space (and it
> > > is tiny).  Literally, there's a little more space near the Sun than
> > > there "should" be, and as a result the direction in which Mercury's
> > > orbit is elliptical moves.  It takes a little over 3 million years
> > > for it to go full circle.
> > >
> > > In almost all cases the vast majority of an object's movement is tied
> > > up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime
> > > (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy
> > > objects, the "future direction" points slightly down. So anything
> > > that moves forward in time will find its trajectory pointing down
> > > slightly.  This takes the form of downward acceleration. This
> > > acceleration (time pointing slightly down) is entirely responsible
> > > for the motion of the planets, and every other everyday experience of
> > > gravity.
> > 
> > 
>  ===========================
> imbecile parrot !!
> THERE IS NO CURVED SPACE TIME 
>  I KILLED IT not too long   AGO 
> Y.Porat
> =================================

MASS IS THE REAL MOTHER OF ALL FORCES!
INCLUDING GRAVITY !!!

ATB
Y.PORAT
===================================

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

#522222 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 1:26:51 AM UTC-7, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 11:24:28 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:54:04 PM UTC+3, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.
> > > > http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-why-does-curved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of
> > > > objects until they are moving really fast.  With the exception of
> > > > only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close
> > > > to flat.  For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth
> > > > amounts to less than 1cm.  The precession of Mercury's orbit is
> > > > another example of the tiny effect of the curvature of space (and it
> > > > is tiny).  Literally, there's a little more space near the Sun than
> > > > there "should" be, and as a result the direction in which Mercury's
> > > > orbit is elliptical moves.  It takes a little over 3 million years
> > > > for it to go full circle.
> > > >
> > > > In almost all cases the vast majority of an object's movement is tied
> > > > up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime
> > > > (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy
> > > > objects, the "future direction" points slightly down. So anything
> > > > that moves forward in time will find its trajectory pointing down
> > > > slightly.  This takes the form of downward acceleration. This
> > > > acceleration (time pointing slightly down) is entirely responsible
> > > > for the motion of the planets, and every other everyday experience of
> > > > gravity.
> > > 
> > > 
> >  ===========================
> > imbecile parrot !!
> > THERE IS NO CURVED SPACE TIME 
> >  I KILLED IT not too long   AGO 
> > Y.Porat
> > =================================
> 
> MASS IS THE REAL MOTHER OF ALL FORCES!
> INCLUDING GRAVITY !!!
> 
> ATB
> Y.PORAT
> ===================================

Ask Sam where gravity waves fit in?? No answer yet.Things fall down because space is not flat locally.Gravity is so weak it can kill you falling 12 feet.Gravity force is so weak so why is gold so heavy? Gravity is a particle particle attraction,and particles curve space.There should be a quantum curved space inside a Planck length.TreBert

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

#522232 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

reber g=emc^2 wrote:

> Ask Sam where gravity waves fit in?? No answer yet.Things fall down
> because space is not flat locally.Gravity is so weak it can kill you
> falling 12 feet.Gravity force is so weak so why is gold so heavy?
> Gravity is a particle particle attraction,and particles curve
> space.There should be a quantum curved space inside a Planck
> length.TreBert

Common error made in Relativity. They fool them self by saying it till 
they start believing in what they say.

Real life "spacetime" cannot possibly causate Gravity. Only Matter can 
perform the task. This particularly according to the Divergent Matter 
Model (DMM).

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

#522816 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 8:11:39 PM UTC+3, Jimmie Wynne wrote:
> reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> 
> > Ask Sam where gravity waves fit in?? No answer yet.Things fall down
> > because space is not flat locally.Gravity is so weak it can kill you
> > falling 12 feet.Gravity force is so weak so why is gold so heavy?
> > Gravity is a particle particle attraction,and particles curve
> > space.There should be a quantum curved space inside a Planck
> > length.TreBert
> 
> Common error made in Relativity. They fool them self by saying it till 
> they start believing in what they say.
> 
> Real life "spacetime" cannot possibly causate Gravity. Only Matter can 
> perform the task. This particularly according to the Divergent Matter 
> Model (DMM).

=============================
right !!

as i said many times 
=============================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
================================================
Y .Porat
=============================================

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

#522938 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

Am 20.09.2015 19:11, schrieb Jimmie Wynne:
> reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
>> Ask Sam where gravity waves fit in?? No answer yet.Things fall down
>> because space is not flat locally.Gravity is so weak it can kill you
>> falling 12 feet.Gravity force is so weak so why is gold so heavy?
>> Gravity is a particle particle attraction,and particles curve
>> space.There should be a quantum curved space inside a Planck
>> length.TreBert
>
> Common error made in Relativity. They fool them self by saying it till
> they start believing in what they say.
>
> 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. 
This we see in all sort of things, since a thing is a thing, if it stays 
as it is.

In relativity lingo:
Matter is 'timelike stable'.

If the axis of time is turned, than matter is not timelike stable any 
more, but actually disintegrates and radiates away.

And spacetime does not 'like ' energy moving through space.

Now hight has an effect on time and lower means slower clocks. This is a 
VERY small effect, but actually means 'curved spacetime', since a 
vertical above a certain spot on Earth is curved in spacetime. 'Curved' 
means: time is not constant along this vertical (what is a straight line 
in space).

If now things drop down, they are closer together and leave less energy 
floating through space.

Their clocks run slower (in comparison) and they heat up. They maximise 
the length of their path through time (are more timelike) and minimise 
the opposite, what is called 'spacelike' behaviour.

And this is what we can see everywhere and call the effect 'gravity'.



TH

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

#522970 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

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.

Irrelevant butthole. Matter is total different from empty space.

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

#522995 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

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

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

#523053 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

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]

#523241 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

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]

#523290 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 2:17:59 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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!
> >

I started to read your book  https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  to see your view.  I understood your approach and continued to read with anticipation until I realised that although you were beginning with fundamentals, they weren't necessarily true.  IOW, just a guess.

From then on, I just skimmed to topics that I have done extensive research on; especially aether and gravity.

Your dismissal of an aether is based only on whether it fits your model just as Einstein did, but unlike Einstein, you actually refute the notion as impossible with your understanding rather than just unnecessary for a geo-mathematically descriptive model.

Your poke at gravity is also self-driven by your model.  It is not descriptive of or translatable to anything but itself.

Overall, there is no tangible sense to your model-idea.  The bits of familiar math you provide are but weak attempts to cajole the reader into some sort of sensible belief.

That said, your effort is commendable.

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

#523079 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:19:44 PM UTC+3, 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

==============================
see my thread in sci.physics 
'THE MOMENT THAT CURVED SPACE DIED '
!!

TIA
Y.Porat
=============================

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

#523150 — that, that is gOOd

space is minimally three-dimensional (or,
spatially extended in space, through which light may propogate;
tims is not a dimension per se ... well,
that is just a fuck-up of Minlowski,
who has a whole ton of N-d geometry that you can deal with,
if you want the good ****

> 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).

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

#523246 — Re: that, that is gOOd

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:10:02 PM UTC+3, noTthaTguY wrote:
> space is minimally three-dimensional (or,
> spatially extended in space, through which light may propogate;
> tims is not a dimension per se ... well,
> that is just a fuck-up of Minlowski,
> who has a whole ton of N-d geometry that you can deal with,
> if you want the good ****
> 
> > 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).

=======================
you start  for a change talking sense !!

Y.Porat
================================

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

#523327 — Re: that, that is gOOd

so, you agree that Minkowski blew that

> > spatially extended in space, through which light may propogate;
> > tims is not a dimension per se ... well,
> > that is just a fuck-up of Minlowski,
> > who has a whole ton of N-d geometry that you can deal with,

> you start  for a change talking sense !!
> 
> Y.Porat
> ================================

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

#523892 — Re: that, that is gOOd

yeah, but he did a huge amount of other stuff,
that is always being used in publications ...
just day, dUh

> so, you agree that Minkowski blew that

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

#522978 — Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 9:20:51 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 1:26:51 AM UTC-7, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 11:24:28 AM UTC+3, Y.Porat wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:54:04 PM UTC+3, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.
> > > > > http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-why-does-curved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of
> > > > > objects until they are moving really fast.  With the exception of
> > > > > only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close
> > > > > to flat.  For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth
> > > > > amounts to less than 1cm.  The precession of Mercury's orbit is
> > > > > another example of the tiny effect of the curvature of space (and it
> > > > > is tiny).  Literally, there's a little more space near the Sun than
> > > > > there "should" be, and as a result the direction in which Mercury's
> > > > > orbit is elliptical moves.  It takes a little over 3 million years
> > > > > for it to go full circle.
> > > > >
> > > > > In almost all cases the vast majority of an object's movement is tied
> > > > > up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime
> > > > > (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy
> > > > > objects, the "future direction" points slightly down. So anything
> > > > > that moves forward in time will find its trajectory pointing down
> > > > > slightly.  This takes the form of downward acceleration. This
> > > > > acceleration (time pointing slightly down) is entirely responsible
> > > > > for the motion of the planets, and every other everyday experience of
> > > > > gravity.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > >  ===========================
> > > imbecile parrot !!
> > > THERE IS NO CURVED SPACE TIME 
> > >  I KILLED IT not too long   AGO 
> > > Y.Porat
> > > =================================
> > 
> > MASS IS THE REAL MOTHER OF ALL FORCES!
> > INCLUDING GRAVITY !!!
> > 
> > ATB
> > Y.PORAT
> > ===================================
> 
> Ask Sam where gravity waves fit in?? No answer yet.Things fall down because space is not flat locally.Gravity is so weak it can kill you falling 12 feet.Gravity force is so weak so why is gold so heavy? Gravity is a particle particle attraction,and particles curve space.There should be a quantum curved space inside a Planck length.TreBert

Sam what happened to gravity waves?? LIGO the big LIE O TreBert

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web