can you read this , Magnus, i think you can find the problem, for the part of conflicting on light speed contraction. the speed is equal in all directions and all observers,in any system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction 2010/9/3 Magnus Berg <[email protected]> > 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 > -- 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
