It appears to be very strange , Magnus , but gravity, like light, and magnetism seems to have and behave like a wave The waveform is unproven, but predicted by Einsteins general relativity, many scientists are on the stake-out to find proof for it For example , the NASA, some sattelite's, and especially lingo, at least i think the project is called lingo, Kip Thorne, one of Hawkings acolites and personal friend is one of the promotors of the lingo-project, they hope to find proof. They do this because of all evidence is showing that Einstein was wright on gravity having the waveform,...-if it does , and it probably will, in time, then all laws on light and speed of light will apply on gravity as well,like the Uncertainty-principle is also applyable on soundwaves, waterwaves,all matter with a waveform or karakter.ALL WAVES.
Hmm, conflicting , its not conflicting with gravity itself , because the mechanism of gravity remains unknown, it is however conflicting with all proof and representations of gravity, because the representations and properties known thus far, are proven beyond any doubt, they are however not reality themselves. Okay, the light violating part, the article you pointed at,Faster than light shows the answer, under "justifications" read the line, that is why i say to stay away from special relativity, faster than....special relativity proposes a model that is left, even by Einstein later on.Tachyons do not exist, nothing can brake the constant. (1 controversial exeption exluded for now) For very special purposes the special as an add on general R theory is still used in some models, very dangerous to step from general to special , and stepping back is limited to very strict environments , Its better to leave the special relativity for now. It will only blurr things. The part that is violating gravity's representations. I repeat, gravity depends on mass, and masses, therefore it is believed to reside within all particle's, evidence for this is in fact simple. If it should not be residing in the particle's appearance's then every object on earth should be moving at lightspeed all the time. But the triggering mechanism to give all particle's and objects(intrinsically) their mass remains hidden, it is nowedays believed to reside within the Higgs_field or Higgs boson, good search terms , do some googling. the violating part lays in the appearance of gravity in empty space , in your model, all gravity there is is only branched out from stars , planets,moving partikels, neutrino's, etc, low because low on mass,.but high when the masses are high. Gravity therefore is at its highest value in or near a black hole ,(predicted by Einstein, proven); gravity can grow to an indefinate value in such a hole. according to the endless mass, you see? so its not in empty space. Okay, if you do some reading it will dawn i think, do i proceed removing some bugs? it will become a long posting list-your call. Adrie 2010/9/3 Magnus Berg <[email protected]> > Hi > > > On 2010-09-03 16:14, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > >> 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 >> > > Sure, but what I meant was this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light > > But that was only regarding c, not g. I hope you see that my model of > gravity isn't that conflicted as you thought. > > Magnus > > > > > > 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> > 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
