Re: Gravity -- Fundamental Force or Space-Time Geometry?
- From: Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:10:51 -0500
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:46:59 GMT, brian a m stuckless <bastuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote: > > On 20 Nov 2005 22:36:40 -0800,
>franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > >Old Man wrote: <franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >I would say that gravity is definitely a force. I find
>> >> > Einstein's > assertion that gravity is the result of
>> >> > space curvature to be absurd. ....
>> >>
>> >> frankinhu is kicking a straw man. He's left out the bit
>> >> about time. The real hypothesis is that the acceleration
>> >> measured by a freely falling observer is always zero.
>> >> The proximity of mass / energy alters the space-time
>> >> metric from that of free space.
>> >>
>> >> > The reason is that if mass does bend space, then I
>> >> > would think that it would bend space for all objects
>> >> > passing through a region no matter the speed or mass.
>> >>
>> >> And time ? A null-geodesic is pure geometry. it depends
>> >> only upon the impact parameter. Invariant mass /energy,
>> >> m*c^2, gravitates. Kinetic energy, p*c, belongs to the
>> >> null-geodesic. It works. Newton doesn't.
>
>WHAT "iNVARiANT mass".?!! WHAT "mass.".?!! GR HAS *NO* "mass".!!
>EXHiBiT how any GR mass mathematically RELATEs to GR T_uv = G_uv.
Of course GR uses the term "invariant mass". In Newtonian gravity
the most used formula F = G Mm / d^2 is only valid for "test" objects
that are small in comparison to the mass of the Earth.
If "falling" in gravity is a for relative acceleration as opposed to
F for force, the mass of the very small test object can be ignored, but
it still exists.
This points out the big problem learning mass with rules and
formulas, a physicist must be able to construct his own formulas,
so that he can know what terms can be ignored, and if they are
not in the standard formula, then he can know if they are simply
ignored or do not belong there.
>(Snicker) oh, what happened to any sign of GR *ANGULAR* momentum?
Frankly, most of the time I have no idea what your sentences
or questiions mean. I can't even tell any more what a person's
agenda or hangup is any more, and your messages are the most
puzzling.
Any term in GR can be converted to Newtonian gravitation
or mechanics in some way, at least where the solar system, small
objects and most forms of energy found here.
I believe the GR formula for the surface gravity of the Earth
contains both the F of universal gravitation and the Newtonian
constant of gravitation.
For small objects, the mass of the small object is simply _ignored_!
>> >OK, I may be missing something
>
>Well GR, *NOW* has ..TWO (2) MiSSiNG-mass ..IT's ONLY TWO (2).!!
GR is not missing anything, I don't know for sure what you
are missing, the original poster approached the problem at the
7th grade level, possibly as a joke or as sarcasm.
>> You missed a lot, and since you seem to be interested,
>> no need to miss all the fun.
>>
>> >- but what does the dimension of time
>> >have to do with the warping of space? Let's include time - how
>> >does this make the curvature of space-time dependent on the mass
>> >and speed of the object passing by a more massive object?
>>
>> For objects smaller than a mountain, mass is not required
>> in the math. --
>
> insert .."dipstick".!!
No thanks.
Joe Fischer
.
- References:
- Re: Gravity -- Fundamental Force or Space-Time Geometry?
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Gravity -- Fundamental Force or Space-Time Geometry?
- Prev by Date: Re: A little challenge for relativists.
- Next by Date: Re: At least one thing dumber then ether
- Previous by thread: Re: Gravity -- Fundamental Force or Space-Time Geometry?
- Next by thread: Re: Gravity -- Fundamental Force or Space-Time Geometry?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
