Re: Space-time curvature


"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:ygTFe.64558$oJ.56215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dc8s4v$19q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> > news:6FIFe.64161$oJ.3197@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:dc7g10$1ct$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> > > > news:kcGFe.64056$oJ.61548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:dc79fm$ejt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> > > > > > news:qdzFe.63715$oJ.35264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:dc6b5e$g7f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Space-time curvature can be proved wrong easily. We only
have
> to
> > > > > > > > demonstrate, that GPS-correction is the same regardless of
the
> > > > > altitude
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the satellite. It would be strange if this kind of
experiment
> > had
> > > > not
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > done. Read more:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Henry Haapalainen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your have been posting the same unintelligible semantic
nonsense
> > > since
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > least the year 2000 - and the answer is the same now as it was
> > when
> > > > Tom
> > > > > > > Roberts responded to you back then
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/53c5e6fe41005b1d?hl=en
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Nonsense. GR does so. And your "explanation" has the serious
> > defect
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > seems to be meaningless (at least as best I can interpret your
> > > > words).'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Those sentences (answered by Tom Roberts?) are not from the
theory
> > of
> > > > > > gravity as falling space. I have no idea, where they come from.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply have a look at the first message of the thread that you
wrote
> > on
> > > > Jul
> > > > > 28 2000
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3c90a47db412fc2c?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Bodies are not moving in some kind of absolute, "resting" space.
If
> > > they
> > > > > were, then Michelson-Morley experiment would prove, that the speed
> of
> > > > light
> > > > > is independent of the movement of an observer. The space near the
> body
> > > is
> > > > > moving with it, because it is the same as gravity field of the
body.
> > > Only
> > > > > thing that we must learn is to realize what gravity is. It is
space
> > > > falling
> > > > > into the body (into an atom). There is no other way to explain
> gravity
> > > > > without contradictions.'
> > > > >
> > > > > As Tom said more kindly the above is nothing but incoherent drivel
> as
> > is
> > > > > your whole (and I use the term loosely) 'theory'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > The theory has been written by a professional translater. I have
told
> > > > earlier that my English is not good enough, and misunderstandings
can
> > > easily
> > > > happen. If you want to ciscuss the theory you have to read it. But
if
> > you
> > > > just want to quarrel you picket the wrong person.
> > > >
> > > > Henry Haapalainen
> > >
> > > All right had a quick read - you stated:
> > >
> > > 'But what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be
> > explained
> > > by theory'
> > >
> > > Why do you believe GR's explanation of gravity as space-time curvature
> is
> > > not an explanation when it obviously is?
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> > Paragraphs A5 - A11
> >
> > Henry Haapalainen
>
> I can find no logical chain of reasoning leading to gravity not being
> explained by theory. And even if you had one it is very bad form to make
> statements prior to the reasoning supporting them. For example you state
> 'But if there are no rubber bands between the objects, and if we accept
that
> gravity is, after all, not a force, a contradiction arises.' I can find
no
> support anywhere of a contradiction. In GR, for example, gravity is
> space-time curvature not a force and does not have 'rubber bands' between
> objects which would seem to trivially disprove your assertion. So I ask
you
> to justify your assertion of a contradiction.
>
> Bill
>
You didn't read A5 - A11. You read A5. I give up with you.

Henry Haapalainen


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space-time curvature
    ... >> I can find no logical chain of reasoning leading to gravity not being ... >> support anywhere of a contradiction. ... >> objects which would seem to trivially disprove your assertion. ... You provided no logical chain of reasoning supporting your ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Space-time curvature
    ... >>> I can find no logical chain of reasoning leading to gravity not being ... >>> support anywhere of a contradiction. ... >>> objects which would seem to trivially disprove your assertion. ... >>> Bill ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Space-time curvature
    ... >>> accept that gravity is, after all, not a force, a contradiction ... When I posted such rather than post the exact reasoning ... >>> problem and why you are labeled crackpot. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Space-time curvature
    ... >> 'But what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be ... gravity is, after all, not a force, a contradiction arises.' ... space-time curvature not a force and does not have 'rubber bands' between ... objects which would seem to trivially disprove your assertion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations
    ... > a given time, increases as time passes and, for a constant acceleration, the ... > chair is asserted to be the acceleration of gravity. ... I don't know who would have made such a clearly wrong assertion. ... > must be an opposing force equal in magnitude and opposite direction. ...
    (sci.physics)