Re: Space-time curvature


"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dcgque$p8m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:iuCGe.66505$oJ.6696@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:dcdjuq$mqe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > > > 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!
> > >
> > > Henry Haapalainen
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have read it before. One of the reasons you are called a crackpot
> etc
> > > > (and I usually do not use words like ***) is you seem to have a
> very
> > > > selective memory about facts (view your denial of posting the
message
> I
> > > gave
> > > > Toms reply to) and a readiness shift the discussion away from what
is
> > > > relevant when it gets to the meat of your ideas. The relevant issue
> > here
> > > is
> > > > your claim '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
> > > > examined your document and could find no reasoning supporting that
> > > > statement. When I posted such rather than post the exact reasoning
> and
> > > > where it is contained in the document you simply said it is there
and
> I
> > > give
> > > > up. One can not help but have the word 'evasion' spring to mind and
> my
> > > > reply reflected that. If you are genuine that is not the tack you
> would
> > > > have taken - you would have carefully explained your reasoning with
> > quotes
> > > > from your document. The fact you do not take such a course is part
of
> > > your
> > > > problem and why you are labeled crackpot.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you expect, that I should take you seriously? You don't want to
> > know
> > > > what I
> > > > > think of you.
> > > >
> > > > My attitude to cranks and crackpots has developed from many years of
> > > posting
> > > > on sci.physics.relativity and has got me into trouble on a number of
> > > > occasions. However if you were to change your attitude and
actually
> > > > discuss what is relevant rather than detours to discuss my
'attitude'
> > then
> > > > we can return to what this group is about. Care to provide you
exact
> > > > reasoning why you believe '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.'?
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > The sentence you want to be cleared is from a book of fysics. It has
> > nothing
> > > to do with my theory.
>
> > Henry Haapalainen
>
>
> > From A5 on your site:
> >
> > A5
> > But what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be
> explained
> > by theory? In Newton's theory, objects attract each other, in Einstein's
> > theory, an object changes the space surrounding it so that the objects
> > appear to attract each other. 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. If the deviating motion of objects in a gravity
> field
> > is caused by a transmission mechanism that has so far remained
> unobserved -
> > the movement of particles or a wave motion - it could never explain the
> > special characteristic of gravity, that it is not a force. Objects
should
> > move straight ahead in space and not revolve around each other. An
> external
> > force is needed to change this. But even if such a force existed, it
could
> > not explain the true nature of gravity. However, the transmission
> mechanism
> > of gravity is continually being sought - almost certainly in vain. In
> > Einstein's theory, space curves, but why? This remains an abstraction.
> >
> > Note the sentence '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.' So I ask again what is your reasoning for claiming such?
> >
> > Bill
>
> That paradox is mentioned in many books dealing with research of gravity.
I
> cannot use my time to something like that. Read some books.

Then you can cite references where hopefully they can support it. BTW I
believe it is rubbish because GR is precisely a theory without rubber bands
where gravity is not a force - but I am willing to listen to reasoned
argument.

Bill

>
> Henry Haapalainen
>
>


.