Hi Adrie
On 2010-09-03 15:16, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
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.
I never said g (~9.81 m/s2 at sea level) was constant. Not sure what
gave you that idea?
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.
My gravity model doesn't violate that either.
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.
You have probably misunderstood it then. You say there's no gravity
within a spacelab, and I say there is gravity, only that it comes from
all directions so it cancels out and becomes zero.
As you said in your last post, we can only see the *effects* of gravity,
and the effect of gravity in a spacelab is zero. The only difference
between your and my model is how we get to zero.
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.
Did you mean my reply to Horse's post? About the local speed limit? I
think you need to point at my mistake in that case so we can discuss it.
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.
I don't suggest the proofs are invalid or should be disregarded, but
they might be tautologies within that system of assumptions.
Magnus
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
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
