|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Marko Rodin - Smart Lazer Technology
|
|
Poster Handle
|
aether |
|
Post Content
|
Einstein described a Newtonian gravity well as a curvature of the field. If you assume that there is no aether particle field, then you are left to say that the curvature of the field is the curvature of empty space.
Spacetime is based on the concept that light travels at a limited speed, and therefore the information you receive from the universe must take into account where and when the signal was sent. In other words, the limited speed of light will produce illusions that must be accounted for when "decoding" your observations. Special relativity and then GR take this a step further and say that the "illusions" are physically determinant - for example: he claims that travelling fast makes clocks go slower, but whilst you are travelling really fast you do not see your clock as going slower. Then when you get home less time will have past for you than for you twin brother who stayed at home. He is claiming that not only did the clock go slower, but that time went slower, hence you aged less than your non-travelling brother. This concept can also be expressed by sentence: "sit down and smoke another one". Quoting: aetherYes, but I believe you will have aged less not because time ran slower, but because atoms decay slower in high gravity fields or at high velocities. If the trip is 10 years both brothers will say ten years passed, yet one is younger. not because less time passed for him, but because his atoms decayed slower. Well one will argue time went slower, but what is time but the decay of atoms. So the only possible solution is a standard clock free of all gravitational and velocity affects (an impossibility.) I still say both clocks agree, if you convert either one to the other frame, which you MUST do if you want to compare them, else comparison is useless, then both clocks agree that either 10 years has passed or less, depending on which frame is converted to which frame. If your clock says a second is so long and it says the other is shorter, then both cannot be seconds from your frame. But if convert his frame to your frame, then both become seconds of the same duration again, and vice versa.
It's all a mind game to prevent you from looking at the base presumptions and equations and discovering their flaws Quoting: science. It is possible to do so but every modification weakens it and for the speed of gravity its entirely unnecessary considering that near instant communication is sufficient to explain observations. Introducing c as a limit was/is purely to keep SR & GR in vogue. Engineers are happy to continue to use Newtons laws. Relativity adjustments were/are entirely unnecessary and that's where the real test of a theory is. Unfortunately scientists feel they need to fit SR & GR into whatever it is they are working on so they are not ridiculed or blackballed, and more naive scientists try to build upon this house of cards when their theories would probably benefit from ignoring these pseudo constraints. Quoting: scienceI agree, scientists would be much better off starting from scratch. Not much gravity research is being done in this day and age due to the simple fact that whenever someone tries to research it the answers do not agree with theory, so it has been basically dropped. If nearly instantaneous speed for the gravitational force was so wrong, as you say, we would not still have Newton's laws on the books. Of course they will tell you that it is only approximate and for more precise calculations GR must be used. The funny thing is though GR reduces to Newtonian physics. This is because GR leaves out aberration which in affect gives a theory of light traveling at c an actual infinite speed for it. It is quite a neat slight of hand, divert you with fancy words so you do not look closely at the math. The math has zero aberration, which means gravity travels at near infinite speed, plain and simple. Light has aberration, and it is plainly in the math for SR and GR concerning light, but not for gravity. This is how GR reduces to Newtonian theory, by neglecting aberration. If something has no aberration it's speed must be infinite. Quoting: sciencegravity has nothing to do with tides, that it is purely caused by the E/M force.
"E/M force" is in this respect the same as planet "charge" force. That is to say it is not electrical or magnet it is simply a pushing force in opposition to the gravitational vector. Quoting: science as the electrical force is both attractive and repulsive in nature, depending on the distance between charged bodies. And btw, if it has charge, it is electrical in nature whether you define it as such or not. No charge, no electrical force, charge, electrical force. And nothing that exists (is real) has no charge contrary to any claims that may say otherwise. Nor are their virtual particles. That is simply a cop out to avoid saying we haven't a clue so we are going to make something up. Everything that exists consists of 3 things:
1) Spin
2) Charge
3) Mass
You can bet if something is said to not have one of those three things then you can put it with the rest of the files in file 13. The simple fact is there is nothing in the entire universe that does not operate in one way or another with electrical forces. If several quanta added together make a photon, then the quanta have to be electrical in nature or they could not make a photon that consists of the E/M force. Quoting: science
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
