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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460691

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

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web