Re: Space-time curvature


"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:MITFe.64576$oJ.7135@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dc908h$7gm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> > news:ygTFe.64558$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.
>
> I did read it. You provided no logical chain of reasoning supporting your
> assertion. I, and other posters to this group, gave up on you long ago
> which is why you have not received any replies. A standard crank tactic
> (from how to be a crank 101 I suspect) is to claim discussion further in
the
> document supports it but when you have a look at it does not. Then when
> that is pointed out they say you are biased, blind or I give up or some
such
> rubbish rather than simply give the detail. It is similar to your claim
of
> a prize - a trick as old as Methuselah.
>
> Bill
>
Dear Bill, during past years you have allways been the first with your
critics like crackpot, ***, idiot, ignorant etc. Now you say that you
have really read a few paragraphs of the theory, but not until now! Do you
expect, that I should take you seriously? You don't want to know what I
think of you.

Henry Haapalainen


.