Re: What if gravity isn't a force, just an illusion of expanding spacetime's momentum?


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:owgoi.5548$6K3.3616@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear cfk:

"cfk" <ckurasek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1184991390.386465.143380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 20, 9:21 pm, "Bill Hobba" <rubb...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"cfk" <ckura...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1184962721.776315.270760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Could it be possible that gravity isn't a force per se,
rather spacetime expands at a rate proportional to
the mass occupying it and the distance from the
mass (like an expanding light cone, only made from
the spacetime 'fabric'), and the 'force' of gravity is
really just an illusion that's an artifact of the
expansion (like centrifugal force isn't really an
independent force)?

How does the expansion generate the force? If
everything expands what presses against what?

Rest of misconceptions snipped.

If one accepts that spacetime is indeed a fabric

... then one does not need expansion to describe gravitation. It is that
simple.

that is expanding and consequently affects matter
and energy, then inflation would be affecting
everything, including us.

Experimentally, nothing within our supercluster (of which the Milky Way is
a small part) appears to be expanding. Yet we have gravitation.

If spacetime was expanding at different rates (e.g. in
proportion to the mass occupying it), then the effects
would not be uniform.

Expansion appears to be a common rate at any given age. So this too fails
experimentally.

We know that all galaxies are moving away from us
and at an accelerating rate proportional to it's distance
from us, so from our relativistic frame, inflation is not
having uniform effects.

Uniform at a certain age, just not "over all time". So it has nothing to
do with the "distribution of matter", and your supposition goes without
support again.

...
I realize this is still not the most comprehensible
explanation of the idea, so let me know if this still
doesn't make sense.

You have been so informed.

I like: expansion places additional "radiational" energy between bits of
matter, and those bits can reduce said energy gain by getting a little
closer. It still fails to provide a quantitative description, and so is
unhelpful (if not also outright wrong).

David A. Smith


Thanks David, I could not have said it better myself. I wondered where
these guys could get such silly notions - then I came across
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Theory-Rethinking-Scientific-Legacy/dp/1581126018
'McCutcheon offers gravity for a revolution based on what every parachutist
repeatedly sees after jumping: the earth increasing in size and coming right
at him! In other words: you can deny gravitational pull by having the earth
(atoms for a more general theory) increase in size at the same rate things
have been calculated to fall.'

As the reviewer said (correctly):
'The worst derivation of such bogus is an obvious oversimplification of
reality. A total fallacy which leaves readers with the idea they have
finally understood complex subjects by falling prey to a Mickeymousation of
science. Whatever the merits of his criticism of unsatisfactory modern
science propped up to a `sacred cow status', you must beware of someone so
obviously off mark. AND, the fact that both gravity and inertia have no real
explanation but only conflicting theoretical attempts to explain them, is,
of course, what facilitates pulling your leg in any direction. Please
consider gravitational pull as the safest!'

That such rot actually get published and 5 star reviews is a sad inditement
on our society. But then again so is:
http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html

'About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching
assistant was explaining Descartes. He was trying to show how things don't
always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen
always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let
go of it on the Moon. My jaw dropped a little. I blurted ``What?!'' Looking
around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked
confused by the TA's statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like
``What's your problem?'' ``But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the
Moon, just more slowly.'' I protested. ``No it wouldn't.'' the TA explained
calmly, ``because you're too far away from the Earth's gravity.'' Think.
Think. Aha! ``You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon,
didn't you?'' I countered, ``why didn't they float away?'' ``Because they
were wearing heavy boots.'' he responded, as if this made perfect sense
(remember, this is a Philosophy TA who's had plenty of logic classes). By
then I realized that we were each living in totally different worlds, and
did not speak each others language, so I gave up. As we left the room, my
friend Mark was raging. ``My God! How can all those people be so stupid?'' I
tried to be understanding. ``Mark, they knew this stuff at one time, but
it's not part of their basic view of the world, so they've forgotten it.
Most people could probably make the same mistake.'' To prove my point, we
went back to our dorm room and began randomly selecting names from the
campus phone book. We called about 30 people and asked each this question:
If you're standing on the Moon holding a pen, and you let go, will it a)
float away, b) float where it is, or c) fall to the ground? About 47 percent
got this question correct. Of the ones who got it wrong, we asked the
obvious follow-up question: You've seen films of the APOLLO astronauts
walking around on the Moon, why didn't they fall off? About 20 percent of
the people changed their answer to the first question when they heard this
one! But the most amazing part was that about half of them confidently
answered, ``Because they were wearing heavy boots.'' I say, science
education must be at an all time peak!!!

Yea - science education must be at an all time peak

Thanks
Bill


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now
    ... interest in science. ... than what a single manned mission ought to be able to return. ... missions to the moon. ... a gravity well, not as big a gravity well as the Earth, but none the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
    ... the asteroid down on the moon and then strip mine it out for smelting ... (another process that gravity becomes sort of important for). ... maglev train is about half again as large. ... :And I have tremendous enthusiasm for EM launch from the lunar surface. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Newtons theory of "Universal Gravitation"
    ... The Moon orbits around the Earth. ... change, its distance stays about the same, and hence its orbit must be ... named that pulling force gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
    ... > gravity-well/nullification zone between us and the moon is roughly 84% ... All of a sudden 'they' decide that Moon gravity takes effect. ... The pilot of a spaceplane should 'aim' at the Moon or, actually, lead ... > The composites of what basalt fibers and basalt microballoons as having ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: USA urges scientists to block out sun
    ... a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow ... and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, ... much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within ... potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the ...
    (sci.space.policy)