You are badly conflicting the model of gravity, Magnus , its better that i inform you gravity as in g-force, what you think is a constant, the acceleration, 9.81 m/s, is not a constant , it is mass dependant interacting with other masses, interacting with the earthrotation, the tides,(masses),...etc , the constant is a variable because it is derived from massdependancy. because you are showing to be interested, i will provide a link to g-force on wiki.
if you read the artikel closely you will be able to see how badly you are violating the model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force pay special attention to gravity on the moon, this deviates because of the lesser mass , Astronaut can make leaps 6 times bigger. the acceleration is about 1.6 instead of 9.81, and also depending on were you are standing on the surface. this is all proven. there is no gravity within a spacelab, astronauts are flying around weightless, Magnus, there is only some interaction at close distance in total empty space , gravity is absent mainly, lack of partikel's you see,... so the model you and John made, and i was reading it , is totally invalid, sorry to say it. the deviation you are making on lightspeed, and the role of the observer, as mentioned,is even more badly, but understandable and derived from the fact that it is incredible difficult to understand general relativity- and especially special relativity. The main problem is the hierargy you have to follow- first general to answer the question, than special, but than you step back into general again, strictly spoken.The hierargy does not allow it.But i agree that this issue is one of the most dangerous to interpret. My advice for this moment , avoid it , its incredible difficult to explain, in your explanation about relative speed of light/observer, you are trying to step away from the constant again, remember, nothing can go faster than light at max speed, nothing , not even pure energy.But as you are interested try to start with the link , read it carefully. Its better to be informed , before the misconception grows on you.Adrie Also try this , things that are already proven long ago, cannot be made undone nor disregarded. Einstein made assumptions , but as they are proven experimentally later on, they became laws of nature. It arrived at him in a dynamical way, in a matter of speaking,in the last part of his life he admitted that most of his work was derived from intuition solely, and confirmed after that.Same goes for Heisenberg. 2010/9/2 Magnus Berg <[email protected]> > Hi > > > On 2010-09-02 16:20, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > >> Gravity is everywhere around us and different on all locations. >> How? well, mass is involved , so it depends on the observers >> weight-distance >> to the earthcore( max mass) and distance to the >> earthrotationsaxle.spacetime >> is involved because gravity , like light , is bendible, compressible, >> etc...(all proven). >> Some minor players are involved , like lake's different mass than >> soil,mountains, sea, etc, >> The location. >> The local location, the direct vicinity of the gravity field around a >> human >> observer, gravity is different in your backyard if you compare it to your >> livingroom, (masses), gravity is different in an airoplane then on the >> ground, different distance to earthcore-airoplane-than airoplane -observer >> on the ground. gravity, time is different in a satellite than it is on the >> ground, space/timedilatation,(relativity of speeds, bending of time). >> So to show an example , mostly in a sattellite in a geo-stationair >> position >> time goes about 4 full minute's slower than it goes on earth >> they have to correct this every day for all sattelite's depending on the >> orbits/speeds, different bending. >> > > I'm actually not sure the best way to explain gravity's effect is that mass > curves space. > > Think of it this way, the effect of gravity reaches far out in space from a > massive object. The effect causes other objects to fall towards the massive > object. However, the strange thing is that the object always accelerates > towards the massive object at the same acceleration, regardless of *its* > mass. This means that the massive object must draw a larger object harder > towards itself, because it requires more force to accelerate a larger object > than a smaller. > > But this doesn't make any sense. How could the sun direct more gravitons > (or whatever it is) towards Jupiter than it sends towards Earth. No sense at > all. > > So, in light of this, Einstein's solution was that space itself was curved, > causing the differently sized objects Jupiter and Earth fall towards sun at > the same acceleration. He sort of fooled the system. > > However, even if such a solution has a certain appeal, apart from the fact > that it works very well, it kind of bites itself in the tail. It tries to > explain the gravity that pull planets towards the sun using the gravity that > makes a ball roll down a slope. But since we know that the two "kinds" of > gravities are really the same, the proof becomes circular. > > If we now back up to the original problem, we can see that another solution > is the one John and I mentioned the other day, but I'm pretty sure most of > you either didn't take notice, or just thought we were fooling around. The > other solution is that space itself is the origin of gravity, and it > *pushes* all mass away from it. The net effect will always be the same, > Earth will get pushed from all directions *but* from the sun, or rather, the > sun will cancel out just as much gravity as required to accelerate the Earth > towards the sun in exactly the same way the curved space explanation would > stipulate. > > All the proofs that proves that space gets curved are *probably* proven > within that system. The system where space *is* curved, so I'm not so sure > it's possible to prove much else given that first assumption. > > Magnus > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
