Re: Gravity without mattter



RH Nigl wrote:

"Don Stockbauer" <donstockbauer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193483760.230642.154520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 26, 6:59 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <Uncle...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4722772C.D0A124C4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RH Nigl wrote:

Is it possible to have (G)ravity independent of the existence of
Matter?

A bit more, if Matter never existed, would there be Gravity?

Weyl tensor. No mass is required for gravitation.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

The property that is invariant is self referential. Same chicken and
egg tautology I think
RHNwww.exoptica.typepad.com/blogoptica

Gravity sure seems to be dependent on mass if one looks around a bit,
at least out to the causal horizon, that is..


I would like to think so, too. Afterall, it is what we were all taught, and
Newtonian physics works well with the space programs ... but, why are
'gravitons' so elusive? The search should be more rewarding ... and besides
as a writer and artist I trust my intuition ... and intuitively, something
is
wrong.

RHN/GHD

Know something tehnically valid before you speak,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_tensor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrov_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_decomposition
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.