Re: Gravitational acceleration


Koobee Wublee wrote:

{snip]

>
> Newtonian physically fails at explaining exactly why objects with mass would
> even physically atract[s] each other.

Why do you think it should?

> Similarly, General Relativity also
> fails to explain why objects with mass and thus energy (both observed
> parameters) would physically cause a curvature in surounding spacetime.


Why do you think it should?

> Thus, GR cannot be regarded as a next-generation theory to Newtonian
> physics. If Einstein can adapt his calculations towards what the answer is,
> one can also modify Newtonian physics to match the observed.


How do you think one could?

>
> > But beyond that nothing in relativity says you can not describe things
> > going faster than the speed of light - for example the sweep of a
> > flashlight over clouds can easily exceed the speed of light or the closing
> > velocity of two objects can be greater than the speed of light.
>
> Not just in relativity, no object physically can be observed to travel
> beyond the observer's own observed speed of light in vacuum. This is
> already implied in the Lorentz Transforms.


The question is not whether it can be observed to do so, the question
is whether it can do it, even while you fail to observe it doing so.

>
> > What is says is you can not send information faster than the speed of
> > light.
>
> Better brush up on your quantum mechanics.

QM: G = 0, h = h
GR: G = G, h = 0

You naughty boy, mixing apples and potatoes again?

Mike

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... All presynched clocks remain in synch no matter how they are moved. ... proves that it is a pure coincidence that the predictions ... I do remember that your variable star program gave a very vivid demonstration of the fact that we do not observe what the ballistic theory predicts we should observe when it predicted that HD80715 should be a variable. ... | Any theory of physics is an attempt to explain | the observations and measurements which are already made. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>Nature as anything more than the phenomena Nature produces. ... We don't know if what we observe is real or not. ... > senses, or that which is capable of effecting that which can stimulate the senses, is ... Physics deals with this issue more concretely by considering as physical ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>Nature as anything more than the phenomena Nature produces. ... We don't know if what we observe is real or not. ... > senses, or that which is capable of effecting that which can stimulate the senses, is ... Physics deals with this issue more concretely by considering as physical ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>Nature as anything more than the phenomena Nature produces. ... We don't know if what we observe is real or not. ... > senses, or that which is capable of effecting that which can stimulate the senses, is ... Physics deals with this issue more concretely by considering as physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have a go a tearing this apart ...
    ... every three seconds for an infinite period of time, ... Every theory of physics I know of treats spacetime like a "stage", ... Newtonian physics disagree ... Suppose we add another polarizer after the first. ...
    (comp.theory)