Re: ballistic gravitation

On Jan 3, 9:04 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:e51847a7-b7cf-4e4c-ac14-5838f4ad0921@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 3, 7:15 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:58b80d61-0510-42d7-b27d-69cb6e2214e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 3, 6:36 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:d7688f86-6759-4b2a-8432-dd978a9cf76b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 3, 4:52 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> "Sue..."
<suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im

I didnt want to discuss Einstein. Lets think for a while that relativity is
somehow correct.

Gerber isn't Einstein.



But what does it say?  Its a modell of the goemetry of curved spacetime.
Obviously there is more than geometry in our world i.e. big and tiny
objects. And there are fields. As one of you mentioned websites showed, the
em-field does not effect the restmass of a particle. So its a valid
approximation to leave em-fields in a modell of gravitation.

It is probably essential.

But its not
correct to reduce our world to geometry.

It is neither correct nor incorrect.
Polar paper is no better nor worse than
grid paper.

? So spacetime is only a modell of
that aspect (of our world): space and time and its connection to the energy
content. And here Noethers theorem is of some use.

Its a modell, but a good one, since i trust those who state they have
checked its validy.

AFAIK the free-enery crowd has nothing to show us so far.
So its validity is as solid as it can be.


Now i try to apply this modell to galaxy formation and find it quite
complicated. Newtonien gravity is far easier but obviously not correct. So i
bet, ART will win.

<< Einstein published his theory of
gravitation, or general theory of relativity,
in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of
beliefs, was established. It was not until
1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force
(known as Van der Waals' dispersion force
or the 'London force') that causes gas
molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force
is always attractive and operates between
electrically neutral molecules
<<
What a different story might have been told
if London's insight had come a few decades
earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced
by a century instead of being bogged in a
mire of metaphysics. >>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp

Ya need a plausible mechanism as well as a
quantitative formalism.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015

Sue...


Thomas Heger

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gravitons and black holes
    ... > Thomas Heger: ... Gravitation is forming the black hole, so it has to manage to get out. ... Gravitons as quantum-physics modell of gravitation should agree with that, ... Quantum physics can't easily have an other proposal, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitons and black holes
    ... >Gravitation is forming the black hole, so it has to manage to get out. ... a virtual particle and a propagating particle, ... is a way to cut off vagueness in the quantums physics modell. ... >is mainly a discriptive modell for big systems and quantum physics delivers ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast