Re: if gravity were a field
- From: "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:09:10 +0200
"Joe Fischer" <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:rvjeq1pjp0scm085fu6pqe0grt40j5rblr@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, "Henry Haapalainen" wrote:
>
> >About flow:
> >
> >I may be wrong, but when speaking of a flow I see gas or fluid (or the
> >aether). That misunderstanding I have tried to avoid. This is how it is
> >explained in the theory:
>
> Well, how should it be viewed, as sand or marbles?
>
> >B3
> >In what kind of universe would space fall towards a gravitational mass?
>
> I have no idea, I don't even think things fall,
> that is an observer illusion.
>
> >Is
> >space like water or gas, which it is possible to imagine falling? This
image
> >is erroneous for two reasons. The speed of a falling substance varies,
like
> >water in a waterfall.
>
> Like gravity?
>
> >In ether-free space, speed is irrelevant; acceleration is not.
>
> Acceleration is misunderstood, all it does is change
> velocity. But it also does something inside the molecules
> an atoms.
> In the 1904 paper, Lorentz imagined the orbits of
> electrons changing from about circular to elliptical.
> I think this is right, but I think this only happens
> during acceleration, it returns to normal when acceleration
> stops. I think Lorentz imagined this as making rods a
> different length.
>
> But acceleration is not involved in falling or change
> in motion due to gravity.
> This is a big problem with falling space. It is not
> possible to ignore the fact that freefall _is_ inertial
> motion, falling space would make falling an acceleration,
> wouldn't it?
>
> >Secondly, the falling substance would have a volume, which should
> >divide into different directions, when the substance falls towards
different
> >gravitational masses (e.g., the Earth and the Moon).
>
> That doesn't help the problem of a volume moving
> toward a smaller volume, which gravity appears to cause.
> A better model would have matter moving outward.
>
> >Here too, immaterial
> >space does not act like a substance, instead space at the same point in
> >space could fall unimpeded in several different directions.
>
> Isn't it supposed to be what makes things move
> down in your theory? Things don't fall in different
> directions.
>
> >About causing the falling of space:
> >
> >That question is as difficult to answer as the question of the birth of
the
> >universe. Gravity (falling space) and an atom are the two different sides
of
> >the same thing. One cannot exist without an other.
> >Henry Haapalainen
>
To Joe
I can explain the same things as many time as needed, if it helps. But now i
think that you have some misunderstanding of the basics, and we have to
correct it. This may be my misunderstanding of your text but I have to ask
it: Have you certainly understood that the Moon is falling down to the
Earth, all the time? It is not falling to any other direction.
Henry Haapalainen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: if gravity were a field
- References:
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: catlover
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: PD
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: uucp02938
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: PD
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: if gravity were a field
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: if gravity were a field
- Prev by Date: Re: On the "contraction" of a rod in SR
- Next by Date: Re: if gravity were a field
- Previous by thread: Re: if gravity were a field
- Next by thread: Re: if gravity were a field
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
